
rare •&* 7 3 L 5 

Book _■ t 

Copyright ft _ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 




J. J. SUMMERBFLL, D. D. 



Campbellism is Rebellion 



A Handbook on Campbellism 



By J. J. Summerbell 

Author of "Six Centuries/ '"Scripture Doctrine/ ' 

"Life and Writings of N. Summerbell/' 

"Mountains of the Bible/' etc. 



DAYTON, OHIO 

THE CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION 

1913 



^ 






ft 



COPYRIGHT, 1913 

THE CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION 

DAYTON, OHIO 



/ 



©CU:J5 68 7 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 

Pbeface -------- 5 

Sevebity - - - - - - - -7 

Campbellism is Rebellion 16 

Impudence of Discbowning Chbist - - - - 34 

Why Campbell Rebels Against Jesus 39 

Campbellism Similab to Romanism - - 49 

Campbellism Similab to Mobmonism 50 

Campbell's Main Doctbine ----- 51 

Acts 2 : 38 59 

Mabk 1:4 70 

Mabk 16 : 16 74 

Acts 2 : 47 76 

Acts 22 : 16 78 

I. Peter 3 : 20-21 83 

John 3:5 89 

Romans 6:3-4 108 

Matthew 28 : 19 112 

Acts 19 : 5 116 

I. Cobinthians 12 : 13 - - - - - 120 

Titus 3:5 121 

Ephesians 5 : 26 125 

Galatians 3 : 27 128 

I. Cobinthians 6 : 11 130 

Pbactical Comments ------ 132 

Bible Examples Refuting Campbellism - - 140 

Bible Teaching Dibectly Refutes Campbellism - 161 
Campbellism Leads to the Adoption of Subsidiaby 

Ebbobs ------- 174 

Gbeat Subsidiary Ebbobs of Campbellism - - 216 

Spibitual Effect of Campbellism - - - 239 

Minor Inconsistencies ----- 246 

Cruelty of Campbellism ----- 247 

Conclusion ------- 258 



PREFACE 



ON account of the fact that the Disciples of 
Christ were brought into existence as a 
special body by Alexander Campbell, 
some readers may suppose that this book is directed 
against them. But it is not: for many of that 
body do not insist on his views. This book is only 
directed against the special doctrines of Alexander 
Campbell. 

The Christian Publishing Association, which 
issues this book, does not assume responsibility for 
its doctrinal utterances, being controlled by a 
brotherhood that allows individual interpretation 
of the Scriptures, making Christian character the 
only test of fellowship. With our people, freedom 
of utterance is equally a right with freedom of inter- 
pretation; the one implying the other. 

J. J. SlJMMERBELL. 

Dayton, Ohio. 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 



SEVERITY 

THROUGH all the progress of mankind, even 
from the beginning of human history, 
God's gracious plans for the welfare of 
his children on earth have sometimes been delayed 
by the imitations substituted by agencies not of 
heaven. 

Let us, in the fear of God, examine this painful 
subject; beginning our investigation with hearts 
humbly bowing before our heavenly Father. 

All denominations have multitudes of true 
Christians, sincere followers of the Savior, whose 
lives adorn the doctrines they profess, and whose 
final home will be heaven. Therefore any remarks 
which appear in this book, of a severe spirit, need 
not be considered as directed toward any sect. We 
criticise only false doctrines, and those who advo- 
cate them. Unfortunately, some of the doctrines 
we hope to expose are in their very nature so con- 
nected with morality itself, that fairness of 
presentation requires that we connect the doctrine 
with its advocate; even as our Savior himself, 
although of the sweetest spirit, and loving men so 
much that he died for them, denounced those 
teachers of his day who made void the law of God 
by the "traditions and commandments of men." 



8 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Believing that this is done in modern times, we 
criticise the doctrines, and denounce the theologians 
who teach them. 

That severe and apparently harsh language, 
with occasional sarcasm and irony, may be used in 
this book is to be regretted: for thereby many a 
reader will almost immediately be alienated from 
its conclusions, prejudging the arguments and 
reasonings as prejudiced, or even unjust. Thus I 
will fail to produce some of the good for which the 
book is written. 

But, on the other hand, if I were to use milder 
descriptions of the moral issues, I might lead some 
reader to infer that the natural conclusions from the 
arguments I present were doubtful; and he might 
suspect that I myself was conscious of some defect 
in the reasonings, though not revealing it. I do 
not wish any uncertainty on this point. Also, I 
wish my language and arguments to be consistent 
with each other ; not insidiously producing an impres- 
sion on the reader which I myself am not willing 
to express in direct language. 

But the masses are not primarily, nor chiefly, 
responsible for the teachings of the leaders; and 
in this book we speak against no denomination, as 
a denomination, nor against any denomination as 
to its professed denominational doctrines. Al- 
though this book is written against Campbellism, 
I do not believe there is any Christian body, the 
masses of whose common people in the present day 
accept Campbellism. In former times there was 
one that made a dividing appeal to the Christian 
world, wholly on the philosophy (or sophistry) of 



SEVERITY 9 

Campbellisni. That denomination was the one 
which its founder, Alexander Campbell, named 
Disciples of Christ. The Campbells were its great 
original leaders, and from their name it was often 
nicknamed Camphellites. 

But conditions have changed very greatly in 
that denomination in the last generation, on account 
of its plea of the Bible creed. That led to change. 
While Alexander Campbell is still honored among 
them as their great theologian and denominational 
founder (although some of them claim that they are 
not a denomination), they are possibly gradually 
drifting away from the name he gave them 
(Disciples of Christ), accepting any name that 
seems to them Biblical or convenient; and they are 
also gradually abandoning some of the doctrines he 
taught. This is under the influence of the Scrip- 
tures, and of other denominations of Christians. So 
that I believe that the majority of the members of 
the Disciple denomination to-day are not Camp- 
bellite in their theology ; although I admit that they 
cannot properly absorb the spirit of Bible brother- 
hood among Christians, nor in any important 
degree be helpful to Christian union, until the 
remaining influence of Campbellism is well stamped 
out. 

But while the Disciple denomination is gradu- 
ally abandoning Campbellism, that body of theology, 
because of the vigor of its original presentation and 
the superficial manner in which it has been inves- 
tigated by other theologians, has to some degree 
made its way into other sects, and is yet maintained 
with vigor by many in the body that was originally 



10 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

responsible for it. But there is no longer a Camp- 
bellite sect; although there are many who believe 
Campbellism, and advocate it strenuously. 

Therefore, if a member of the Disciple body 
imagines at first that this book is written against 
his denomination, and that it misrepresents it, or 
is unfair to it in some way, let him free himself 
from that suspicion, and accept my statement that 
I contend only against a system of theology that is 
in some of its features permeating various sects. 

This book is written only against the errors of 
theologians who know that they are followers of 
Alexander Campbell; whom we call Campbellites, 
not in a hateful or unkind sense, but as a word of 
well known meaning, and correctly descriptive of 
a believer in the doctrines of Campbell; and in the 
same spirit in which we use the words Hixite, 
Mohammedan, Wesleyan, Eutychian, Lutheran, Cal- 
vinist, Montanist, Pelagian, Arian, Swedenborgian, 
Monophysite and Mennonite. Alexander Campbell 
himself recognized the word, and used it in an 
article in the "Encyclopedia of Religious Knowl- 
edge." To avoid the use of the word would be to 
avoid the one word of well known meaning concern- 
ing theological doctrines. But I do not apply the 
word to any denomination; but only to a certain 
school of theologians. 

If there is severity of language in this book, 
it need not be attributed to malice. As well might 
Jesus have been accused of malice, when he said to 
a powerful sect of his time, — 

"Ye have made void the word of God because of your 
tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of 



SEVERITY 11 

you, saying, In vain do they worship me, teach- 
ing doctrines the precepts of men" (Mat. 15:6-9). 

Although a Christian spirit requires that we 
be kind to our fellow men, real kindness does not 
consist in concealing the moral effect of error, nor 
in being kind to error itself. Because of their 
evil effects, some errors require severity, to make 
them clearly understood. Let the reader carefully 
consider the appropriateness and propriety of the 
language; whether it be suitable to proper descrip- 
tion of the moral bearing of the argument. 

However, a follower of Campbell will have 

little objection to severity, being himself accustomed 

to using harsh terms concerning the doctrines of 

other sectarians, in which practice he follows his 

leader, as I now show by the following quotations 

from the writings of Alexander Campbell: — 

"There is something so impotent in an assent to mere 
opinions in joining a sect, in becoming a Baptist, Methodist, 
or Presbyterian, that it makes no sensible difference in 
the affections towards heaven, and therefore fails to purify 
and elevate the heart, and to reform and decorate the 
character of the proselyted. The first converts to Chris- 
tianity in the converting act in the assurance of remission, 

were made strong in the Lord But, I ask, Is this 

true of all or of a majority, or of a respectable minority 
of them who are converted to a sect? If I may judge from 
long observation, one such christian is almost a prodigy 
in a city, in a county, or large district of country" 
(Christian Baptist, edited by Alexander Campbell, from the 
second edition, with "Mr. Campbell's last corrections," 
page 656). 

"Although there are perhaps ten thousand preachers in 
the land speaking every Sabbath day in all the synagogues, 
yet but two men speak in them all — and these two are 

John Calvin and James Arminius Some of those 

dogmas may be metaphysically true, but they are distilled 
truths. They have come from the Calvinistic or Arminian 

distillery The men who deal in these distilled truths, 

and those who drink those distilled doctrines, are generally 
intoxicated" (Christian Baptist, pp. 132-133). 



12 CAMPMLLISM IS ftfiBBSLLION 

"The whole Paido-Baptist priesthood is an order of men 
unauthorized by Heaven. They are neither constituted, 
commissioned, nor authorized by the Head of the Church 
to officiate in any one of their assumptions" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 176). 

"We must confess that we cannot view with other feel- 
ings than those due to a thief and a robber, w T ho covers 
himself with the curtains of night, that he may execute 
his designs, those who attempt to extend their empire over 
the human mind and conscience, by suppressing the truth 
or withholding the light from the eyes of those who look 
up to them as their guides" (Christian Baptist, p. 171). 

"The devotees of the popular religion are very stupid, 
because their teachers generally leave them, in point of 
information, just where they find them, prodigiously 
ignorant of the holy scriptures" (Christian Baptist, p. 
50). 

"Money, I think, may be considered not merely as the 
bond of union in popular establishments, but it is really 
the rock on which the popular churches are built" (Chris- 
tian Baptist, p. 43). 

"And dare you say that money is not the basis of the 
modern religious establishments? It begins with money; 
it goes on with money, and it ends when money fails" 
(Christian Baptist, p. 43). 

"Dear sir, my very soul is stirred up within me, when 
I think of what a world of mischief the popular clergy have 
done. They have shut up everybody's mouth but their 
own ; and theirs they will not open unless they are paid 
for it. This is the plain blunt fact. And if I cannot 
bring facts, and documents, and arguments to show that 
the paganism of the world is, in a great measure, 
attributable to them; that the ignorance and prejudice of 
our times, and that the incapacity of the believers to 
publish the glad tidings is altogether owing to them; that 
they, as a body collective, are antichrist — then I will say 
that I cannot prove any proposition whatever" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 71). 

"And I do know that the popular clergy are not en- 
titled to receive one cent from the people, because they 
have put themselves into an office which Heaven never 
gave them, trample upon the rights of the people, keep 
them in ignorance, and practically deny that heavenly 
aphorism of our Lord, which says, 'It is more blessed to 
give than to receive'" (Christian Baptist, p. 72). 

"The worshiping establishments now in operation 
throughout Christendom, increased and cemented by their 
respective voluminous confessions of faith, and their 



SEVERITY 13 

ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, 
but the legitimate daughters of that Mother of Harlots, the 
Church of Rome" (Christian Baptist, p. 23). 

"The great majority of papers called religious, are as 
much political, commercial, and facetious as they are 
religious. The Luminaries, Stars, Suns, Registers, Record- 
ers, Secretaries, etc., etc 'Anything to please every- 
body and anybody for the sake of two dollars a year,' is 
their motto" (Christian Baptist, p. 260). 

"We contend that all christian sects are more or less 
apostatized from the institutions of the Savior" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 288). 

"What good effects are to result to society from the 
many religious newspapers now in circulation, I know not. 
Most of them seem to be designed to sell so many reams 
of paper and kegs of ink per annum, and to furnish business 
for mechanics. The trash which they crowd upon the 
public ear and the public mind neither feeds body, soul, 
nor spirit" (Christian Baptist, p. 361). 

"I have yet to meet with the first church which holds 
a human creed with inflexible rigidity, and which is en- 
lightened in the Holy Scriptures. The stronger the faith 
in human creeds the weaker the attachment to the Bible, 
and the greater the ignorance of its contents" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 361). 

"I do attribute to creeds, in the proper acceptation 
of the term, all the divisions and strifes, partyism, and 
sectarian feeling, of the present day ; all the persecutions 
and proscription, all the havoc of human life, and all the 
horrors of the inquisition in the cause of religion" (Chris- 
tian Baptist, p. 361). 

"Creeds and creed-makers are anathematized from 

Heaven Protestant creeds, cry aloud for vengeance 

on those who framed them, and on those who executed 
them" (Christian Baptist, p. 361). 

"Some Baptists are extremely devoted to immersion. 
They have read all the baptisms on record in the New 
Testament, and beginning at the Jordan they end at the 
city of Philippi, in the bath in the Roman prison. The 

ancient mode and nothing else will please their taste 

The importance of implicit obedience is extolled, and the 
great utility of keeping his commands is set forth in 
language which cannot be mistaken. But when the ancient 
mode of observing the Lord's day or of breaking bread is 
called up to their attention, they fall asleep. The author- 
ity of the Great King will scarcely make them raise their 
heads or open their eyes. Implicit obedience now has 



14 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

no charms, and the utility of keeping his commands has 
no attractions for them. Such Baptists are not regener- 
ated, that is, they are not devout — not devoted to the will 

of God They have got a Baptist conscience, and not 

the conscience of the regenerate. A Baptist conscience 
hears the voice of God and regards his authority only 
where there is much water" (Christian Baptist, p. 363). 

"But are all the baptized in infancy, by Methodists, 
Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc., to be classed among the 
virtuous and pious? No; the one half, probably, of all 
the persons thus made members of the church, in infancy, 
are now among the skeptics, infidels, or worldlings of the 
present day. Were you to explore drinking houses, gam- 
bling houses, theatres, and other vicious haunts of dissipa- 
tion, profligacy and crime, you would find them filled with 
hundreds and thousands of these baptized members of the 
Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational, and Methodist 
churches" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 355). 

"Nothing is more unlike the christian kingdom than 
the dry, cold formalities which appear in the inside of a 

Baptist or Presbyterian meeting house A tree frog 

is generally the color of the timber, rail, or fence on which 
it is found. So are the Baptists. They are, in these regions, 
generally the offspring, or converts from the Presbyterian 
ranks" (Christian Baptist, p. 550). 

This severity of expression used by Alexander 
Campbell, and his example, were not lost on his 
followers, as I will amply prove before the book 
closes. 

My reader easily sees, considering the severity 
of their leader, that followers of Campbell have no 
right to condemn severity of expression. 

And yet it is my hope (notwithstanding my 
regret at being severe in describing Campbellism) 
to use words, even in my harsh sentences, far more 
gentle and charitable than those uttered by Camp- 
bellites, not only against other sectarians, but even 
against each other ; as will appear plainly before the 
close of this book. 

Therefore, for the sake of the gospel, and that 
by honeyed words we may not obscure Christian 



SEVERITY 15 

principles by seeming not to be aware of the moral 
bearings of the doctrines discussed, permit me to 
neglect the art of the author who may by gradual 
or insidious approaches lead to a climax; and let us 
be plain from the very beginning, that every reader 
may be on guard, if he so desires. 

During the last hundred years the most 
injurious counterfeit of Christianity has been 
Campbellism. 

Let us show that this is true. 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Many efforts are being made to destroy the 
authority of Jesus; so many that we do not take 
space to name them, much less refute them. But 
there is one device that is used with great persist- 
ence; most of those using it being unconscious of 
the effect of their doctrine. Their reasoning has 
spread from the teachings of those chiefly respon- 
sible, until it is accepted in other quarters by many 
who do not know the arguments, but whose theology 
is colored by it so as to make them turn away 
somewhat from Jesus as authority, Lord, Teacher, 
Master, Leader and King. 

This error is, in part, 

That the kingdom of heaven was not set up, or 
opened, till the day of Pentecost; and that the 
gospel was not preached till that day, nor the church 
established. 

Although this is only one of the subsidiary 
errors of Campbellism, hereafter to be argued again, 
along with others, we here treat it because of two 
reasons : — 

1. It is absolutely necessary to the main 
doctrine of Campbellism; 

2. The spirit of the error is such that it makes 
its victim array himself in opposition to the king- 
ship of Jesus, thus tending to overthrow genuine 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 17 

Christianity; and we desire our readers to know 
this spirit in the beginning of the discussion. 

Alexander Campbell worded this secondary 
error of his in the following language: — 

"When Peter, to whom was (sic) committed the keys 
of the kingdom of heaven, opened that kingdom to the Jews 
on Pentecost, he opened it by an authoritative annuncia- 
tion of the remission of sins through immersion into the 
faith of Jesus" (Christian Baptist, "with Mr. Campbell's 
last corrections," 1835, pages 421-422). 

"Had not this been the true meaning of immersion, 
the apostles laid the foundation for universal imposition 
and deception, by thus commencing the administration of 
the reign of heaven" (Christian Baptist, p. 422). 

"Thus we find that when the gospel was announced 
on Pentecost, and when Peter opened the kingdom of 
heaven to the Jews, he commanded them to be immersed 
for the remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if we 
had not another word on the subject. I say it is quite 
sufficient to show that the forgiveness of sins and christian 
immersion were, in their first proclamations by the holy 
apostles inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom 
was (sic) committed the keys, opened the kingdom of 
heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reforma- 
tion, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness" 
(Christian Baptist, pp. 416-417). 

"Having from all these considerations seen that until 
the death of the Messiah his kingdom could not commence ; 
and having seen from the record itself that it did not 
commence before his resurrection, we proceed to the devel- 
opment of things after his resurrection, to ascertain the 
day on which this kingdom was set up, or the Reign of 
Heaven began" (The Christian System, p. 179. The italics 
and capitals are Campbell's). 

"Again, the King himself must be glorified before his 
authority could be established on earth; for till he received 
the promise of the Spirit from his Father, and was placed 
on his throne, the Apostles could not receive it; so that 
Christ's ascension to heaven, and coronation, were indis- 
pensable to the commencement of this Reign of Heaven" 
(The Christian System, p. 180). 

The followers of Campbell so much admire 
this second book from which I quote, that one of 
them uses the following language about it : — 



18 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"Next to the Bible itself there is no other book which 
has played so important a part in the Restoration Move- 
ment as has 'The Christian System' by Alexander Campbell. 
Nowhere else are the philosophy and scriptural cor- 
rectness of the plea set forth as in this unpretentious 
volume. It is the crowning work of a majestic mind" 
(''Portrait Catalog" of Christian Standard Publishing 
Company). 

Observe carefully that we are not now consider- 
ing the main error of Campbellism (immersion in 
order to the remission of sins), but the secondary 
error stated above : that the kingdom was not set up 
till the day of Pentecost, etc. 

The argument to support this error seems to 
be based on the idea that the death and resurrection 
of Jesus constitute the gospel of the kingdom of 
God in some such sense that no one could preach it 
till after those events ; and because of the impossibil- 
ity of such preaching before those events, there 
could be no kingdom before those events. 

This short reasoning seems so conclusive to 
some that they accept it; failing to investigate the 
Scriptures, to find if there is any statement there on 
the subject. On account of this failure, or neglect, 
they overlook the fact that the doctrine directly 
contradicts the Bible, and is morally rebellious 
toward Jesus himself: that is, the doctrine is 
treason. 

The following Scriptures all refer to a time 
before the day of Pentecost, and both in their spirit 
and their words contradict the doctrine we have 
stated : — 

"But if I" (Jesus) "by the Spirit of God cast out 
demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (Mat. 
12:28). 

"Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 19 

Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time 
Is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, 
and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:14-15). 

4 'The law and the prophets were until John : from that 
time the gospel of the kingdom of God is preached" (Luke 
16:16). 

"But if I" (Jesus) "by the finger of God cast out 
demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you" (Luke 
11:20). 

"And it came to pass soon afterwards, that he went 
about through cities and villages, preaching and bringing 
the good tidings of the kingdom of God, and with him the 
twelve" (Luke 8:1). 

"And he called the twelve together, and gave them 
power and authority over all demons, and to cure diseases. 
And he sent them forth to preach the kingdom of God, 
and to heal the sick" (Luke 9:1-2). 

"And it came to pass, on one of the days, as he was 
teaching the people in the temple, and preaching the gospel, 
there came upon him the chief priests and the scribes with 
the elders ; and they spake, saying unto him, Tell us : By 
what authority doest thou these things" (Luke 20:1-2). 

"And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this 
man perverting our nation, and forbidding to give tribute 
to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king. 
And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the 
Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest" 
(Luke 23:2-3). 

"Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of 
God; thou art King of Israel" (John 1:49). 

"Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? 
Jesus answered, Thou sayest; because I am king. To this 
end have I been born, and to this end have I come into 
the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth" 
(John 18:37). 

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, 
hath one that judgeth him : the word that I spake, the same 
shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48). 

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! 
because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for 
ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that 
are entering in to enter" (Mat. 23:13). 

"Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, that the 
publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God 
before you" (Mat. 21:31). 



20 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"Blessed is the King" (Jesus) "that cometh in the 
name of the Lord" (Luke 19:38). 

"Looking unto Jesus the author and perfecter of our 
faith" (Heb. 12:2). 

The careful reader will see that the foregoing 
quoted Scriptures make no mention of the day of 
Pentecost as the time of the setting up of the king- 
dom, nor as the day when the gospel was first 
preached; but distinctly prove that those events 
took place before. Not only so, but there is one 
passage which seems to have been written as if to 
anticipate and refute the theory of Alexander 
Campbell, however plausible his doctrine may be. 
It is as follows, relating the conduct and words of 
Jesus : — 

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought 
up: and he entered, as his custom was, into the synagogue 
on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there 
w T as delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. 
And he opened the book, and found the place where it 
was written, 
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, 

Because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor : 
He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, 
And recovering of sight to the blind, 
To set at liberty them that are bruised, 
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. 
And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, 
and sat down: and the eyes of all in the synagogue were 
fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, To-day 
hath this scripture been fulfilled in your ears" (Luke 
4:16-21). 

"The acceptable year of the Lord," therefore, 
was before Pentecost. 

The Scriptures we have already quoted settle 
the question as to when the kingdom was set up, 
and who first preached the gospel, and when, pro- 
vided we accept the testimony of Jesus, Matthew, 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 21 

Mark, Luke, John and the writer of the book of 
Hebrews. 

But there is something else connected with this 
subject that is of serious importance : — 

In order to understand the relation of this 
theology to human character, let us ascertain the 
spirit of reverence toward Jesus the king that we 
ought to cultivate. To do this, let us consider the 
statements of Jesus himself concerning his own 
authority ; all spoken before the day of Pentecost : — 

Mat. 11 : 27. "All things have been delivered unto me 
of my Father." 

Mat. 28 : 18. "And Jesus came to them and spake unto 
them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in 
heaven and on earth." 

Luke 10 : 22. "All things have been delivered unto me 
of my Father." 

John 5 : 22-24. "For neither doth the Father judge 
any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; 
that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. 
He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not the Father that 
sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth 
my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, 
and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of 
death into life." 

John 5 : 43. "I am come in my Father's name, and ye 
receive me not." 

John 3 : 35-36. "The Father loveth the Son, and hath 
given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the 
Son hath eternal life ; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall 
not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." 

The reader may easily see that theologians are 
assuming a grave responsibility, when they direct us 
away from Jesus to Peter, or when they frame any 
doctrine that lessens the respect we have for the 
w r ord of Jesus on the question of the remission of 
sins. The boon of eternal life is based on believing 
Jesus. 



22 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Thus this subject is one closely connected with 
character, and all the severity of language of this 
book is justified. And not only so; but it is pos- 
sible that it is the duty of ministers of the gospel 
to denounce the sin of the doctrine we now condemn, 
on the same principle as that on which we condemn 
saloon-keeping, infidelity, and other vices. But the 
real situation as to this matter of sin we will develop 
later. It is sufficient now to remember that 
Jesus even taught that "the wrath of God" (John 
3:36) rested on him who dishonored Jesus' author- 
ity ; and he taught this before the day of Pentecost. 

But if there is any reader who, notwithstanding 
the direct statements of Scripture, still doubts that 
Jesus was really king in his own kingdom, and 
before Pentecost, we offer these arguments:— 

The institution of which Jesus was the head 
prior to his crucifixion had the marks of a kingdom : 

1. Jesus made laws; exercised the legislative 
function. 

2. He had executive power. He forgave the 
woman taken in adultery, the thief on the cross, 
and others; using the pardoning power. When 
Peter was questioned on the subject of Jesus' pay- 
ing tribute, and gave hasty answer, Jesus reasoned 
briefly with him, closing with the words, "Therefore 
the sons are free" (Mat. 17:26); thus claiming 
exemption from tribute or tax. But to prevent 
offense he gave the money in such a way as to 
demonstrate his royalty; causing the very fish in 
the sea to bring the tribute money to Peter's hook. 

3. He did not admit any appeal from his own 
decisions or statements. 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 23 

4. He had subjects. And he claimed their 
full obedience, even in the face of worldly opposi- 
tion. In their hearts he asked supreme submission. 

Even Pilate in some sense acknowledged Jesus' 
royalty, in putting over his head on the cross the 
inscription, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the 
Jews." To this the Jews objected, not admitting 
that he was king; wishing Pilate to state that he 
claimed to be king. This proves that the real issue, 
the kingship of Jesus, is not a new one. Possibly 
Pilate understood the subject better than Campbell : 
for Pilate had asked Jesus directly the question, 
"Art thou a king, then ?" In reply, Jesus assented ; 
but explained to the bewildered Pilate, "My king- 
dom is not of this world; else would my servants 
fight." That is, his kingdom was the kingdom of 

heaven Now, if Campbellism had been true, 

Jesus would not thus have answered Pilate, 
explaining the nature of his kingdom. He would 
rather have put his emphasis on the date, like this : 
— I am not now a king : for my kingdom has not yet 
been established; but I may become a king on the 

day of Pentecost But Jesus did not thus 

reply; but in answer to Pilate clearly said, "Thou 
sayest ;" that is, Yes. 

But Alexander Campbell joins with the Jewish 
opponents of Jesus, denying kingship to Jesus, on 
the ground that the kingdom of heaven was not set 
up till the day of Pentecost. But Pilate called 
Jesus, at least, "King of the Jews" (a kingship 
which would have fulfilled the prophecy, "The 
sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's 
staff from between his feet, until Shiloh come") ; 



2-1 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

and the Jews admitted to Pilate that Jesus made 
such claim: "saying that he himself is Christ a 
king" (Luke 23:2). 

That claim of Jesus was the pretext on which 
they had demanded his crucifixion. They said, 
"TPe have no king but Caesar." 

That claim of Jesus, to being king, was the basis 
of the derision of the Roman soldiers, who crowned 
him with thorns (as Campbell thorns him with 
logic), who put a purple robe on him, who put a 
reed in his hand for a sceptre, who bowed the knee 
before him, who took the reed and smote him with 
it, after they had blindfolded him, saying, "Hail, 
king of the Jews; prophesy unto us w T ho smote 
thee." 

That claim of Jesus, to being king, was the 
basis of the prayer of the penitent thief, "Lord, 
remember me wiien thou comest in thy kingdom." 
And Jesus did not put off the blessing to some future 
day, but instantly answered, "To-day shalt thou be 
with me in Paradise." He exercised the pardoning 
power right there and then. 

The logic of Alexander Campbell, that the 
gospel could not be preached before the death and 
resurrection of Christ, and therefore that the king- 
dom could not be set up before the day of Pentecost, 
is unsound. For Jesus himself predicted and 
preached his own crucifixion and resurrection. 
That is, Campbell argues that a thing could not be 
done, that was done. All Christ's allusions to 
denying one's self and bearing the cross, and follow 7 - 
ing him, were preaching his crucifixion. In vari- 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 25 

ous forms, and on different occasions, he preached 
his death and resurrection. 

He spoke the following words before his 
arrest : — 

"He that doth not take his cross and follow after me, 
is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose 
it; and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" 
(Mat. 10:38-39). 

These words were well known by the New 
Testament writers, being recorded by Matthew, Luke 
and John. 

In fact, Jesus preached his death, the manner 
of it, and his resurrection, over and over; to such 
an extent, indeed, that after his resurrection he 
reproached his disciples about it. The following 
is the way it is once recorded in Mark: — 

Mark 10 : 32-34. "And they were on the way, going 
up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus was going before them : and 
they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid. 
And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the 
things that were to happen unto him, saying, Behold, we 
go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered 
unto the chief priests and the scribes ; and they shall con- 
demn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles : 
and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and 
shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days 
he shall rise again." 

And the very night of his arrest he said these 
words to his disciples: — 

Mat. 26 : 31-32. "Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye 
shall be offended in me this night : for it is written, I 
will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall 
be scattered abroad. But after I am raised up, I will 
go before you into Galilee." 

Then followed the conversation with Peter con- 
cerning the denial and the cock-crowing. 



26 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Christ preached his crucifixion and resurrection 
to all classes of society; so that on the resurrection 
morning angels recalled his words to the wondering 
women, who had sought the "living (one) among 
the dead/' at the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. 
And the following is the beautiful consolidation by 
Tatian of the history as given in Mat. 28 : 5-7 ; Luke 
24:4-8; and Mark 16:7:— 

Diatessaron 52 : 54 to 53 : 7. "And the angel answered, 
and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that 
ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which hath been crucified. He 
is not here; for he is risen, even as he said. Come and 
see the place where our Lord was laid. And while they 
were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood above 
them in dazzling apparel; and as they were seized with 
terror, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said 
unto them, Why seek ye the living (one) among the dead? 
He is not here ; he is risen : remember what he spake unto 
you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man 
is going to be delivered up into the hands of sinners, and 
to be crucified, and to rise again the third day. But go 
quickly, and tell his disciples and Cephas, that he is risen 
from the dead; and lo, he goeth before you into Galilee; 
and there shall ye see him, where he said unto you; lo, I 
have told you. And they remembered his words." 

In another place, in Matthew's history, we find 
the following statement, immediately after the 
annunciation of Peter and the acknowledgment of 
Jesus, that he was the Son of God, the Christ : — 

Mat. 16 : 21. "From that time began Jesus to show 
unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and 
suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and 
scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up." 

Jesus referred to his coming death and resurrec- 
tion in various discourses. Notice the following 
beautiful allusions: — 

John 10 : 11. "I am the good shepherd : the good 
shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep." 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 27 

John 10 : 15. "I lay down my life for the sheep." 
John 10 : 17-18. "Therefore doth the Father love me, 

because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. 

No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. 

I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to 

take it again. This commandment I received from my 

Father." 

Read now the story in John 12:20-31. 

There, when Jesus revealed to his Jewish 
enemies that he w^as to be crucified, "lifted up," they 
disputed with him on the ground that "the Christ 
abideth forever;" which they evidently supposed 
could not be, if he w^ere crucified. 

So far is Campbell's theory, that it was 
impossible for Jesus to preach his death and 
resurrection beforehand, from being true, that he 
preached it so much and so forcibly, although it 
was an apparently unbelievable thing, that after 
he rose they comprehended even his forecasting 
figures of speech referring to it; as related in the 
following Scripture: — 

John 2 : 18-22. "The Jews therefore answered and said 
unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou 
doest these things? Jesus answered and said unto them, 
Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 
The Jews therefore said, Forty and six years was this 
temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? 
But he spake of the temple of his body. When therefore 
he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that 
he spake this." 

Certain of the Jews were perplexed about him, 
and approached him as follows: — 

Mat. 12:38-40. "Then certain of the scribes and 
Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a 
sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, 
An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; 
and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah 
the prophet : for as Jonah was three days and three nights 



28 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

in the belly of the sea-monster; so shall the Son gf man 
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." 

But, as I previously showed, Jesus did not 
always speak in metaphor, when preaching of his 
death and resurrection; but he spoke specifically 
and definitely; and so plainly and emphatically that 
even his enemies knew it well. Mark you: — Even 
his enemies had been so impressed by his preaching 
concerning his resurrection from the dead, that they 
even knew and remembered the details of it, and 
went to Pilate about it, and referred to it as if it 
were common knowledge, as we find from the follow- 
ing Scripture : — 

"Now on the morrow, which is the day after Prepara- 
tion, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered to- 
gether unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that de- 
ceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will 
rise again" (Mat. 27:63). 

And then they had arrangements made to 
prevent fraud. 

And yet Alexander Campbell teaches that the 
gospel was not preached till the day of Pentecost, 
because the death and resurrection of Jesus had not 
been preached; because they had not occurred. 

What a practical fallacy this is, will appear 
when we reflect that Campbell's followers in our 
day preach of a coming resurrection, heaven and 
immortality; although the experiences are future. 
But though future they are a part of the gospel. 
Even so, Jesus' preaching was gospel, even though 
some of it referred to future events. 

Pilate's announcement of Jesus as the King of 
the Jews ought to shame those who argue that Jesus' 
kingdom was not set up till the day of Pentecost. 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 29 

Jesus taught all of Christianity. Anything 
added to his teaching has only the authority of a 
human thinker, unless it can be logically derived 
from his teaching. He taught his own word as the 
standard. He said, "Whosoever heareth these say- 
ings of mine and doeth them shall be likened to a 
wise man, that built his house on a rock." He 
did not say, "Whosoever heareth Peter." And 
although he commanded his disciples to "go into all 
the world and preach the gospel to every creature," 
their commission was plainly limited by the con- 
dition, "teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I commanded you." 

He claimed such comprehensive kingship as to 
say, long before the day of Pentecost (Mat. 12:7), 
"The Son of man is lord of the sabbath." 

The writer of Hebrews (12:2), long after the 
day of Pentecost, declared it when he exhorted his 
readers to "run with patience the race that is set 
before us, looking unto Jesus the author and per- 
fecter of our faith." 

I do not read anywhere in the New Testament 
that we are directed to Peter. Christ fulfilled the 
law. Christ was the founder of his religion. 
Christ was king in his own kingdom. 

No apostle ever claimed that he had set up the 
kingdom, nor that he had preached the gospel before 
Jesus did; nor that any other apostle had. They 
were true subjects to their king, and not rebels. 

And the nearest thing to a claim by any apostle 
to superiority over any other apostle was that 
statement of Peter in the council of Jerusalem, 
concerning which we read the following language 



30 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

about imposing ordinances or ceremonies on the 
Gentiles : — 

Acts 15 : 7-11. "And when there had been much ques- 
tioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye 
know that a good while ago God made choice among you, 
that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of 
the gospel, and believe. And God, who knoweth the heart, 
bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as 
he did unto us; and he made no distinction between us 
and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Now therefore 
why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon 
the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we 
were able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved 
through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as 
they." 

This speech was long after the day of Pentecost, 
it contained matter refuting Campbellism, and it 
referred to Peter's preaching to the Gentiles at the 
house of Cornelius, where "all" the converts received 
the Holy Ghost before they were baptized; so that 
Peter exclaimed, — 

"Can any man forbid the water, that these should not 
be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well 
as we" (Acts 10: 47). 

If Peter ever opened the gates of the kingdom 
to the Gentiles, it was at that house, the house of 
Cornelius: for that was the first time he had ever 
preached to the Gentiles. But on no occasion, 
although Peter might sometimes feel like boasting, 
did he ever claim to have set up the kingdom of 
heaven, or opened its gates. (But this subject we 
will again consider, in place). 

But Campbell's logic also tries to undermine the 
authority of Jesus prior to the day of Pentecost, on 
the ground that the Holy Ghost had not yet been 
given; as stated in the following: — 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 31 

John 7 : 39. "But this spake he of the Spirit, which 
they that believed on him were to receive: for the Spirit 
was not yet (given) ; because Jesus was not yet glorified;" 

Which the follower of Campbell links with 
Jesus' command to his disciples (Luke 24 : 49 and 
Acts 1 : 4-8) after his resurrection and before his 
ascension, as follows: — 

"Tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power 

from on high;" "not to depart from Jerusalem, but 

to wait for the promise of the Father, which ye heard from 

me; ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not 

many days hence Ye shall receive power, when the 

Holy Spirit is come upon you." 

And these blessed assurances and promises of 
Jesus to his disciples, who had been demoralized by 
his betrayal, condemnation, crucifixion and death, 
are used by Campbellism to persuade us that during 
the life of Jesus, before his crucifixion, the Holy 
Spirit had in some way been lacking, although 
Jesus was visibly present with the church; and 
lacking to such an extent that human salvation 
could not be secured in the gospel w r ay because 
Jesus had not yet sent the Comforter to mankind, 
the Spirit of truth. 

But this perverts Jesus' purpose with reference 
to that promise. Jesus gave his promise because 
the disciples w r ere not fully qualified. And the 
"Comforter" was to bring to their recollection Jesus' 
words. Christ never said that they were to teach 
anything outside of his commands, even though the 
Spirit would be with them. His command was 
(Mat. 28:20), "teaching them to observe all things 
whatsoever I commanded you." They were only 
"witnesses." 



32 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Jesus did not lack the Holy Spirit. He was 
always endued with power from on high ; even from 
the very beginning of his earthly existence. Before 
his birth the angel said to his mother, Mary, (Luke 
1:35) "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and 
the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee: 
wherefore also the holy thing which is begotten shall 
be called the Son of God." And when he was 
baptized, the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form 
like a dove upon him. There has never been a 
Campbellite preacher, of whom I ever heard, who 
had such a remarkable demonstration of the pres- 
ence and approval of the Spirit of God. And Jesus 
was all the way along confident of this Presence; 
so that on one occasion he breathed on them, saying, 
"Receive ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22). 

Then the reason why he told them to tarry till 
they were endued with power from on high, after 
his resurrection, was not any sense of lack of the 
Holy Spirit on his part, but his divine knowledge 
that they needed the Spirit's help. That is, they 
were not yet qualified to preach the gospel. They 
needed inspiration more abundantly than they had 
yet accepted it. As he was shortly to ascend from 
their presence, there would be no fully qualified 
preacher of the gospel left, until the Holy Spirit 
would come upon them. In fact, the very presence 
of Jesus might have been an obstruction to the 
coming of the Spirit to them ; that is, to their full 
attention to the influence of the Spirit; so that 
Jesus considered it "expedient for them that he go 
away" (John 16:7), that the Spirit might freely 
have access. And Jesus distinctly asserted that 



CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 33 

even the Holy Spirit was to "bring to their remem- 
brance all that he had said unto them" (John 
14:26). That is, they were to preach nothing 
beyond Jesus' words. 

That this is a correct interpretation of this 
whole subject of the non-giving of the Holy Spirit 
till after Jesus was glorified, will appear plainly 
from the addition in John 7 : 39, in one of the 
manuscripts of this gospel, of the two words 
€7r a avTols (ep' 'autois) (to them). That is, the 
Holy Spirit was not yet given "to them/' 

But, even if, in some sense, the Holy Spirit was 
not yet, as best MSS. have it, that does not imply 
that Jesus was not king with full authority. In 
truth, Jesus was king in such full meaning that he 
not only expected himself to send the Comforter, 
the Spirit of truth, but he used the following 
language concerning his own teaching: — 

John 6 : 63. "It is the Spirit that giveth life ; the flesh 
profiteth nothing : the words that I have spoken unto yon 
are spirit, and are life." 



IMPUDENCE OF DISCROWNING CHRIST 

Now before we treat of the purpose of Campbell 
in expelling Jesus from his own kingdom, and 
denying that the gospel was preached prior to the 
day of Pentecost, let us briefly consider the 
audacity and impudence of the logic. Then we will 
be better able to comprehend the odiousness of the 
treason to Jesus. 

More than seven hundred years before Jesus 
was born Isaiah (9:6) said, "The government shall 
be upon his shoulder." But Alexander Camp- 
bell, nearly two thousand years after Jesus was 
crucified, mutters, The government was not really 
set up till the day of Pentecost ; some time after the 
Christ had ascended into heaven. 

Before Jesus was born, the angel Gabriel said 
to Mary his mother, (Luke 1:32-33) "He shall be 
great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High : 
and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of 

his father David." Here Campbell interrupts 

with his fine spun theory, and says, The angel ought 
to say that Peter shall give him the throne, on the 

day of Pentecost But the angel, not hearing 

Campbell, goes on, "He shall reign over the house 
of Jacob forever ; and of his kingdom there shall be 

no end." Here Campbell again interrupts the 

angel, requesting him to explain that Jesus never 
did have a "kingdom" "over the house of Jacob" 
at all ; for he was crucified before his kingdom was 



IMPUDENCE OP DISCROWNING CHRIST 35 

set up, which occurred on the day of Pentecost; 
and the "kingdom" that was then set up could not 
have been "over the house of Jacob/' seeing that the 
king was in the heavens, and "the house of Jacob" 
was on earth. 

When Jesus was born, angels announced to 
watching shepherds, (Luke 2:11) "There is born 
to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who 

is Christ the Lord." Campbell echoes, And 

he did not become a real Lord till Peter announced 
him on the day of Pentecost. 

When wise men came from the east unto 
Jerusalem, saying, (Mat. 2:2) "Where is he that 
is bom king of the Jews, for we have seen his star 
in the east and are come to worship him?" they 

asked for the "born king." (Read the Greek) 

But Campbell protests, He was not born king: he 
only became king after his ascension to heaven. The 
kingdom was not set up till Pentecost. 

More than five hundred years before Jesus made 
his great royal entry into his earthly capital 
Zechariah the prophet (Mat. 21:4-5) had said, — 

"Tell ye the daughter of Zion, 
Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, 
Meek, and riding upon an ass, 
And upon a colt the foal of an ass." 



But Campbell promptly reasons, This king js not yet 
king: for the kingdom has not yet been set up. The 
royal entry into Jerusalem is too early. 
But the people of Israel cried, 

"Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord : Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom 
of our father David: Hosanna in the highest" (Mark 
11:9-10). 



38 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"Hosanna : Blessed is he that cometh in the name of 
the Lord, even the King of Israel" (John 12:13). 

But Campbell commands, Take up your gar- 
ments from the highway, and the palm branches 
too ; keep them for the day of Pentecost, and honor 
Peter, who will preach the first gospel sermon, and 
set up the kingdom. 

In ancient times the Roman governor, Pilate, 
would have released Jesus, but the Jews cried out, 
"If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's 
friend: for every one that maketh himself a king 
speaketh against Caesar" (John 19:12). And in 
modern times, we hear the echo of that Jewish riot 
against the kingship of Jesus, carefully reasoned 
out by the logic of Campbell, — If we make any 
one king before the day of Pentecost, we speak 
against Peter, to whom Jesus gave the "keys," and 
who on that day set up the kingdom of heaven. Let 
us make a crown of thorns, deriding Christ's claim 
to royalty. Let us put on him a purple robe, to 
make his claim still more ridiculous. Let us put a 
reed in his hand for a scepter, that sinners may see 
that this so-called king has no power till Peter 
enthrones him. 

Notwithstanding Campbell's logic and Jewish 
opposition Pilate put on the cross above Jesus' head, 
"Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." The 
Jews promptly went to Pilate, objecting to the 
inscription, saying, "Write not, the king of the 
Jews; but, that he said, I am king of the Jews." 

And Campbell, even to our day, swells the 

chorus of objection, arguing in modern times that 
Jesus had not yet reached his true coronation as 



IMPUDENCE OF DISCROWNING CHRIST 37 

king of anything, but must wait for Peter to crown 
him. And Campbell has the audacity to do this, 
notwithstanding God's own predictions and threats 
against rebels : — 

"Yet have I set my king 

Upon my holy hill of Zion. 

I will tell of the decree : 

Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son ; 

This day have 1 begotten thee. 

Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine 
inheritance, 

And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 

Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron ; 

Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel" 
(Ps. 2:6-9). 

But Campbell dares the Almighty, argues 
Jesus off his throne till Peter crowns him, and 
boldly defies Jehovah, denying that God "set his 
king on his holy hill of Zion." 

And Campbell does this not withstanding the 
visible appearance of the kingdom under Jesus. 
He brushes aside the manifestations all along of a 
kingly dignity : — royal gifts of the wise men ; efforts 
of his admirers to take him by force and "make him 
king" of an earthly kingdom instead of the kingdom 
of heaven ; the worship of the young man that came 
running and kneeling to him; the bowing of the 
barren fig tree; the surrender of Galilee's waters; 
the obedience of the water made wine; the descent 
upon him of the Holy Spirit at his baptism; the 
homage of the regions of death wiien Lazarus "came 
forth ;" the tribute of the angels on the resurrection 
morning, "He is not here; he is risen, as he said. 
Come see the place where the Lord lay;" the 
whisper of John to Peter, after the great draught 
of fishes, "It is the Lord;" the amazement of the 



38 CAMPBELL1SM IS REBELLION 

common multitude long before, when "he taught 
them as one having authority, and not as their 
scribes;" his own assertion as to the supremacy 
of his laws, and their permanent supremacy, 
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words 
shall not pass away;" "Ye call me, Teacher, and, 
Lord : and ye say well ; for so I am ;" and the flight 
of the money changers from the temple before his 
scourge of small cords. 

Alexander Campbell resists, or ignores, or 
explains away all these proofs of the power, royalty, 
dignity and authority of Jesus; strenuously insist- 
ing that the kingdom of heaven was not set up till 
the day of Pentecost. 

And he even lifts his logic in opposition to the 
voice out of the cloud on the mount of transfigura- 
tion, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 

pleased; hear ye him." Campbell says, No, 

no; do not listen to Jesus; wait till Pentecost for 
"Peter to open the kingdom of heaven ;" hear Peter's 
words, not Jesus' words. And he does this at a 
tremendous risk to himself: for Jesus said, "He 
that rejecteth me, rejecteth him that sent me" 
(Luke 10: 16) ; "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth 
not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the 
word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the 
last day" (John 12:48). 

WHY? 



WHY CAMPBELL REBELS AGAINST JESUS 

What is the object of Campbell in thus dis- 
crowning Jesus. We are curious as to this: for 
Campbell claimed to be a disciple of Christ. Why 
does this ambitious theologian argue that the 
kingdom was not set up till the day of Pentecost? 

We answer, 

CAMPBELL WISHED TO GET EID OF THE 
AUTHOEITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
BOOKS, MATTHEW, MARK, LUKE AND JOHN. 

He did not wish to get rid of the books, but of 
the books as authority. If he had admitted that 
Jesus was king before the day of Pentecost, he would 
have been compelled to admit that the laws an- 
nounced by Jesus himself were the laws to be 
observed; or, that the events illustrating the spirit 
find polity of the kingdom of heaven under Jesus 
were illustrative of the principles to govern ahvays. 

But Campbell wished to establish the following 
doctrine: — that immersion in water is in order to 
the remission of sins. 

But this doctrine could not be plausibly estab- 
lished, if the words and acts of Jesus were to be 
accepted as authority and example. Let us see how 
this statement of mine is true: 



A woman was once brought before Jesus for 
his judgment, who had been taken in the act of 



40 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

adultery. The Jews informed Jesus that Moses 
commanded such women to be stoned. Campbell 
would at least have commanded her to be immersed 
in order to the remission of her sins. But he whom 
we have abundantly shown to be really king, Jesus, 
after a brief conversation with her accusers, who 
were in spirit theological predecessors of Alexander 
Campbell, asked the woman, "Did no man condemn 
thee?" She replied, "No man, Lord." How sweet 
that word, "Lord," must have sounded to the King's 
ears, who had just then been listening to the tirades 
of theologians who had demanded that she expiate 
her sins by a physical act, by being immersed with 
stones ! It spoke to Jesus of faith in him. To her, 
he was "Lord." Immediately Jesus exercises the 
pardoning power of the King, or the suspending of 
the sentence of the judge, and says to her, "Neither 
do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth 
sin no more." 

She went away without being baptized. At 
least, there is no mention of baptism. I believe she 
was forgiven because of her repentance, and faith in 
the King. 

Now if Alexander Campbell were to admit that 
Christ's example in this case suggested the real 
working of the laws of the kingdom, it would prove 
illogical his claims in modern times that baptism 
was in order to the remission of sins; by baptism, 
meaning immersion exclusively For Camp- 
bell equally strongly insists that in the kingdom 
there is only one plan of salvation, which w T ould 
include this poor woman's case, if the kingdom had 
been already set up. Hence, as she is evidently a 



WHY CAMPBELL REBELS AGAINST JESUS 41 

saved woman, he argues that the kingdom of heaven 
had not yet been set up. Thus Campbell keeps the 
woman out of the kingdom, though forgiven, and 
Jesus out of his kingdom, though exercising judicial 
or executive functions, in order to protect his 
doctrine which he supposed to be new. 

Certainly, if baptism w^ould help anybody to 
the remission of sins, Jesus would have been aware 
of its efficacy in the case of the "woman taken in 
adultery." Campbell knew this; and therefore 
framed his plausible doctrine that this was not 
example for our day, because the kingdom had not 
yet been set up. 



(A few sentences above I stated that Campbell 
supposed his doctrine to be new. That the reader 
may not be suspicious that I have no justification 
for my statement, I quote Campbell's own words, 
written by him in the "Christian Baptist," revised 
edition, 1835, "with Mr. Campbell's last correc- 
tions," as follows: — 

"In my debate with Mr. Maccalla in Kentucky, 1823, 
on this topic" (baptism), "I contended that it was a divine 
institution designed for putting the legitimate subject of 
it in actual possession of the remission of his sins — That 
to every believing subject it did formally, and in fact, con- 
vey to him the forgiveness of sins. It was with much 
hesitation I presented this view of the subject at that 
time, because of its perfect novelty" (Christian Baptist, 
page 401). 

The connection of the foregoing quotation also 
shows that Campbell thought he had made a 
wonderful discovery. Later I will show that 
Campbell had made no discovery at all; and the 



42 CAMtBBLLlSM IS KSftflLLION 

reader will see that he had been anticipated. But 
now, to resume : — ) 



Take another New Testament case of forgive- 
ness without baptism: — 

There was a woman who came into the rich 
man's house where a feast was given Jesus. She 
kissed his feet, washed them with her tears, and 
wiped them with the hairs of her head. Jesus said, 
"Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she 
loved much." And to make the facts thoroughly 
understood, the King still further turned directly 
to her, and said, "Thy sins are forgiven." Then 
the Campbellite theologians "that sat at meat with 
him began to say among themselves, Who is this 
that even f orgiveth sins. And he said unto the 
woman," (as if to make his divine theology and his 
royal prerogatives certain), "Thy faith hath saved 
thee; go in peace." 

Jesus distinctly attributes her salvation to her 
faith. But if this case were to be considered as one 
of the gospel dispensation, or of the "kingdom of 
heaven," it would be an example, and would anni- 
hilate Campbell's theology: for here is a woman 
saved by faith from the condemnation of "many 

sins." Therefore Campbell disloyally takes 

the crown off Jesus' head, to wait for Peter to crown 
him king on the day of Pentecost. Thus Campbell 
supposes that the case cannot be quoted against the 
doctrine that people are to be immersed in order to 
the remission of sins. 

But one defect of such theology is, that it is 
rebellion. It sets a preacher over Jesus. Jesus 



WHY CAMPBELL REBELS AGAINST JESUS 43 

cannot forgive a sinner, unless there is a preacher 
near, to baptize the penitent. Jesus must wait for 
the convenience of the preacher. Thus it does more 
than postpone the establishment of the kingdom to 
the day of Pentecost: — Even after the kingdom is 
"set up/' the King himself is made to wait for a 
preacher. 

But Jesus did not come to earth simply to 
accommodate sectarian clergymen, nor to give them 
special, or dominating power over himself, as his 
partners in saving a convert. His purpose was to 
inaugurate a plan of salvation that would work 
wherever and whenever there was a sinner worthy 
of forgiveness. He did not endure the cross and 
despise the shame, to put forgiveness under the 
control of a priesthood; but that we might have 
life abundantly, notwithstanding all accidents, all 
combinations of circumstances, and all conditions. 
He did not intend to limit himself to a preacher's 
convenience. But the Campbellite thrusts himself 
forward, intrudes on Jesus' relation to the sinner, 
and exacts a share of the executive glory in pardon- 
ing him. 



And yet they who thus are not courteous to 
Jesus, sometimes complain that they are called 
Campbellites. Why not be so called, when they 
follow one who discrowns Jesus, until Peter crowns 
him? The Calvinist does not complain of his theo- 
logical name, and the follower of Campbell should 
not. 



44 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Take another case: — 

There was the "man sick of the palsy, lying on 
a bed" (Mat. 9:2). Here was a case where 
immersion in order to remission of sin would have 
been somewhat inconvenient. But "Jesus, seeing 
their faith, said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be 
of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven." It is not 
recorded that Jesus mentioned baptism. 

But there were certain spiritual ancestors of 
Campbell there, and they "said within themselves, 
This man blasphemeth." And Campbell himself 
would have argued, If Jesus really can forgive this 
man, it must be under the old dispensation : for in 
"the Christian system" immersion is necessary in 
order to remission : therefore this case must not be 
used to illustrate the processes of Christianity. By 
this simple device I get rid of the example of Jesus. 
In fact (Campbell goes on) Jesus in this case based 
his forgiveness on faith; and a faith that was not 
theological : he did not even ask the sick man if 
he believed that Jesus was the Son of God. It 
reads, "Jesus, seeing their faith." And Campbell 
goes on to soliloquise, This would be a very offensive 
exception to my theory of immersion in order to 
remission, if it were to be considered as illustrating 
the principles of Christianity. We get rid of it 
by simply arguing that the kingdom had not yet 
been set up. 

Thus Campbellism repudiates case after case 
recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
John, where there are indications that sinners are 
pardoned without immersion. These cases are so 
prominent and so plain, that Campbellism dare not 



WHY CAMPBELL REBELS AGAINST JESUS 45 

admit one of them as giving instruction on 
salvation. 

But is not this a spirit of rebellion toward 
Jesus ? 

In the matter of salvation, Campbell makes the 
books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to be 
preparatory, though those books have been called 
the "Gospels" for generations. Does not this 
desire to get away from the example of Jesus show 
a wrong spirit? Jesus himself was far more 
respectful even to Moses and the prophets, notwith- 
standing his claims for his own dignity and 
authority: for he said, — 

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the 
prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil" (Mat. 5: 17). 

But Campbell not only set aside the Old 
Testament, but the first four books of the New 
Testament: the very books giving us the example 
and teachings of our Savior. And he did this, in 
order to escape from the proof that men are saved 
by faith, and not by immersion. This shows that 
Campbellism is a logic opposed to the spirit of those 
first four books of the New Testament. 

Such treatment of the books especially con- 
taining the histories of the life of Jesus, the King, 
can only be tolerated on the theory that the corner 
stone of Campbellism, the doctrine of immersion 
in order to remission, is so plainly taught in the New 
Testament as to justify exclusion of any act or 
words omitting immersion in the case of a forgiven 
sinner, from consideration as authority or 
statute or dominating influence in the Christian 
dispensation. 



46 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

This rejection of Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
John as authority, which books relate the life of the 
king who was called Jesus because he was to "save 
his people from their sins/ 7 may seem to some reader 
almost semi-infidel; but we do not stay now to 
argue the odiousness of the doctrine in that light; 
but soon go on to consider all the passages that 
Campbell argues teach immersion in order to 
remission. Then we will see that his insurrection 
against Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is equally 
offensive w r ith his rebellion against Jesus. 

Still more odious is this feature of Campbellism, 
when we reflect that although Campbell sets aside 
these books whenever you quote them against his 
theory, he still goes to them for proof, as if he 
accepted them as authority (and Jesus as king) if 
Jesus refers to baptism and sin in connection, or it 
can be so inferred. 

For instance : — 

The follower of Campbell quotes Matthew 28: 
19:— 

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, 
baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Spirit." 

According to Campbell, when Jesus uttered 
these words, the kingdom had not been set up ; and 
though the passage does not mention sins, Camp- 
bell, notwithstanding his own theory, quotes it to 
establish his dogma of baptismal regeneration, but 
putting it in connection (to the ear) with some 
passage that he thinks does refer to remission of 
sins : — 

Such as John 3:5: — 



WHY CAMPBELL REBELS AGAINST JESUS 47 

"Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except 
one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
kingdom of God." 

It is true that baptism is not mentioned in this 
passage, nor is the remission of sins mentioned; 
but both thoughts are supposed by Campbell to be 
taught in it. Anyhow, water is mentioned, and the 
kingdom is mentioned ; and the meaning is distorted 
from Jesus' purpose; and the passage, being quoted 
along with others where baptism is mentioned, or 
sins are mentioned, sounds to the ear as though 
Jesus coupled baptism and remission; Campbell 
doing violence to his theory that the teachings of 
this part of the Bible are not authority, because the 
kingdom had not yet been set up. 

How odious is the theology that thrusts Jesus 
out of his kingdom, to get rid of his example in 
pardoning sin, and yet quotes his words in such a 
jingle of connection that it sounds as if Jesus' teach- 
ing was contrary to his practice! making Jesus 
appear unworthy of being king; hypocritical, in 
practicing differently from his preaching ! 

Possibly, to argue him into such a position 
might justify the Campbellite rebellion, if the 
argument could be made sure. But the argument 
cannot be made sure, as we will show later, when 
considering John 3 : 5, Mat. 28 : 19, and other 
passages usually quoted by Campbellite theologians. 

But we may here consider how inconsistent this 
Campbellite interpretation of John 3 : 5 makes 
Jesus: — On the cross a penitent says, " Jesus, 
remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom." 
Jesus' answer assures the penitent that he shall not 



48 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

only be remembered, but that very day shall be with 
him (Christ) in Paradise; even a companion: 
"Thou shalt be with me." Now whose kingdom 
was Paradise in ? If John 3 : 5 means that Jesus 
taught that a man cannot enter the kingdom of God 
unless he is immersed, it follows that the Paradise 
that the penitent went to that day was not in the 
kingdom of God. But Jesus and the thief were 
together, in the same Paradise. * * * Whose king- 
dom were they in, since, according to Campbellism, 
the thief could not have been in the kingdom of 
God? 

Thus Campbellism not only forces eiesus out 
of the kingdom of God in this world, but even after 

death for a short time Say I not well that 

Campbellism is rebellion? 



CAMPBELLISM SIMILAR TO ROMANISM 

Before we discuss the passages of the Bible 
that Alexander Campbell claims to teach bap- 
tismal remission, I call attention to the fact 
that its philosophy is that of the papacy: 
salvation by works. It is parallel with "saying 
masses/' "burning candles" and "doing penance." 
It is the philosophy that teaches man that he is 
justified by doing ceremonies; a philosophy that 
takes the heart and affection out of that beautiful 
passage (John 3: 16) : "God so loved the world that 
he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life." 

The Roman Catholics, "proverbially cruel," 
taught the philosophy of Campbellism before 
Campbell did; the great difference being in the mode 
of the baptism. The following are passages from 
the Roman Catholic authority, the "Catechism of 
the Council of Trent" :— 

(Page 128) "The remission of all sin, original and 
actual, is therefore the peculiar effect of baptism. That 
this was the object of its institution by our Lord and 
Savior, is a truth clearly deduced from the testimony of 
St. Peter, to say nothing of the array of evidence that 
might be adduced from other sources : 'Do penance' says 
he, 'and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of your sins.' But in baptism, 
not only is sin forgiven, but with it all the punishment due 
to sin is remitted by a merciful God" (Catechism of 
Council of Trent). 

(Page 123) "If the knowledge of what has been hitherto 
explained, be, as it is, of importance to the faithful, it is 



50 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

no less important to them to know, that the law of baptism, 
as established by our Lord, extends to all, in so much, that 
unless they are regenerated through the grace of baptism, 
be their parents Christians or infidels, they are born to 
eternal misery and everlasting destruction." 



CAMPBEIiLISM SIMILAR TO MORMONIS3I 

While the doctrine of the Mormons differs from 
that of the Roman Catholics, in allowing children to 
be saved without baptism, otherwise there is much 
resemblance. The following are quotations from 
the Book of Mormon : — 

(Page 581) "Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the 
fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins. 
But little children are alive in Christ, even from the 
foundation of the world : if not so, God is a partial God, 
and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons : for 
how many little children have died without baptism" 
(Book of Mormon). 

(Page 582) "The first fruits of repentance is baptism; 
and baptism cometh by faith, unto the fulfilling the com- 
mandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth 
remission of sins." 

(Page 478) "And whoso believeth not in me, and is not 
baptized, shall be damned." 

(Page 479) "Blessed are they which shall believe in 
your words, and come down into the depth of humility, and 
be baptized; for they shall be visited with fire and with 
the Holy Ghost, and shall receive a remission of their sins." 

(Page 507) "They which were baptized in the name of 
Jesus, were called the church of Christ." 



CA3IPBELLS MAIN DOCTRINE 

I now state Campbell's main doctrine in his own 
language, taken from various books of his, published 
at different dates, and quote from pages widely 
separated, as well as close together, and in connec- 
tion with various lines of thought; that the reader 
may not mistake Campbell's meaning in his chief 
dogma. 

The following is the language of Alexander 
Campbell, in "The Christian Baptist" ("From the 
Second Edition, with Mr. Campbell's Last Correc- 
tions," 1835) :— 

(Page 401) "Immersion in water into the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the fruit of faith in the 
subject, is the most singular institution that ever appeared 
in the world. Although very common in practice, and trite 
in theory, although the subject of a good many volumes, 
and of many a conversation, it appears to me that this 
institution of divine origin, so singular in its nature, and 
so grand and significant in its design, is understood by 
comparatively very few. In my debate with Mr. Maccalla 
in Kentucky, 1823, on this topic, I contended that it was 
a divine institution designed for putting the legitimate 
subject of it in actual possession of the remission of his 
sins" (Christian Baptist). 

(Page 416) "It is as plainly affirmed in the New Testa- 
ment that God forgives men's sins in the act of immersion, 
as that he will raise the dead at the voice of the 
archangel." 

(Page 416) "We have the most explicit proof that God 
forgives sins for the name's sake of his Son, or when the 
name of Jesus Christ is named upon us in immersion : — 
that in, and by, the act of immersion, so soon as our 
bodies are put under water, at that very instant our 
former, or 'old sins' are washed away, provided only that 
we are true believers." 



52 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

(Page 416) "When the gospel was announced on 
Pentecost, and when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven 
to the Jews, he commanded them to be immersed for the 
remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if we had not 
another word on the subject. I say it is quite sufficient 
to shew that the forgiveness of sins and Christian immer- 
sion were, in their first proclamations by the holy 
apostles inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom 
was (sic) committed the keys, opened the kingdom of 
heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reforma- 
tion, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness." 

(Page 417) "When a person is immersed for the 
remission of sins, it is just the same as if expressed, in 
order to obtain the remission of sins." 

(Page 417) "The first three thousand persons that 
were immersed after the ascension of Christ into heaven, 
were immersed for the remission of their sins with the 
promise of the Holy Spirit. I am bold, therefore, to affirm, 
that every one of them who, in the belief of what the 
apostles spoke, was immersed, did, in the very instant in 
which he was put under water, receive the forgiveness of 
his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If so, then, who 
will not concur with me in saying that Christian immersion 
is the gospel in water." 

(Page 439) "Hence in the moral fitness of things in 
the evangelical economy, baptism or immersion is made the 
first act of a Christian's life, or rather the regenerating 
act itself; in which the person is properly born again 
'born of water and spirit' with- 
out which into the kingdom of Jesus he cannot enter. No 
prayers, songs of praise, no acts of devotion in the new 
economy, are enjoined on the unbaptized." 

(Page 439) "It is not more natural or necessary in 
the kingdom of nature, that blossoms should precede the 
ripe apple, than that, in the empire of salvation, baptism 
should precede the remission of sins and a holy spirit." 

(Page 439) "The question is, Why is the Holy Spirit 
promised as consequent upon immersion? I answer, 1st. 
Because forgiveness is through immersion." 

(Page 439) "The reason why there are no sacrifices — 
no altars, priests, nor victims, under the reign of Jesus, 
Is because remission of sins through immersion is enjoyed." 

(Page 445) "Immersion we have before said is the 
gospel in water.'' 

(Page 436) "The Holy Spirit is promised through 
immersion." 



CAMPBELl/S MAIN DOCTRINE 53 

(Page 436) "Is a man to put on Christ, to be born 
again, to begin a new life, to rise with Christ to a heavenly 
inheritance, to have all his sins remitted, to receive the 
Holy Spirit, to be filled with joy and peace, through the 
mere act of a believing immersion in water into the name 
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I say yea — most 
assuredly." 

(Page 436) "He that goes down into the water to put 
on Christ, in the faith that the blood of Jesus cleanses 
from all sin, and that he has appointed immersion as the 
medium, and the act of ours, through and in which he 
actually and formally remits our sins, has when immersed 
the actual remission of his sins. So that he is dead by 
sin, buried with Jesus, and is born again, or raised to 
life again, a life new and divine, in and through the act 
of immersion. This we have seen in the preceding essays 
is the Bible import of the one immersion. In it we put 
on Christ, are buried with him, rise with him, have our 
sins remitted, enter upon a new life, receive the Holy Spirit, 
and begin to rejoice in the Lord." 

(Page 422) "So that the inference is inevitable that 
the apostle meant what he expressed, and that in the act 
of immersion the remission of sins was bestowed." 

(Page 656) "When the proclamation of the Reign of 
God was first made, reformation and remission of sins, 
or faith and immersion went hand in hand. Every 
baptized person, not a hypocrite, was pardoned." 

(Page 487) "Remission of sins as inseparably accom- 
panies immersion, as reformation accompanies faith." 

(Page 487) "Those who proclaim faith in the Lord 
Jesus Christ and reformation in order to immersion; and 
immersion in order to forgiveness and the Holy Spirit, 
proclaim the same gospel which the Apostles proclaimed." 

(Page 467) "The first act of reformation which was 
intended in the apostolic addresses to the Jews and 
Gentiles, was to be immersed in the name of the Lord 
Jesus." 

(Page 439) "Before the Holy Spirit can be received, 
the heart must be purified; before the heart can 
be purified, guilt must be removed from the con- 
science; and before guilt can be removed from the 
conscience, there must be a sense, a feeling, or an assurance 
that sin is pardoned and transgression covered. For 

obtaining this there must be some appointed way 

and that means or way is immersion into the name of 
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." 

(Page 630) "I might, were it necessary, show that 



54 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

iii no one instance in the New Testament, is remission 
connected with faith alone." 

(Page 630) "But under the former economy blood was 
necessary to forgiveness ; and under the new economy 

water is necessary faith is the principle of 

action in both and they are the means, not 

'agents,' through which God imparts remission." 

(Page 422) "When Paul was immersed, it was declared 
and understood by the parties that all his previous sins 
were washed away in the act of immersion." 

(Page 630) "Nothing can be more plainly taught in 
the New Testament than that the actual remission of sins 
is now connected with immersion." 

(Page 631) "The act by which we put on Christ, the 
act by which we come to Christ, the act by which we 
confess Christ, the act by which we become disciples of 
Christ, the act by which we come into the kingdom of 
Christ, the act by which we are married to Christ, the act 
by which we receive the pardon of our past sius, the act 
by which we come into the actual enjoyment of the 

salvation of Christ in this present life is the 

act of immersion into the name of Christ." 

(Page 630) "No man could be called a disciple or a 

convert no man could be said to be discipled 

or converted until he was immersed. Whatever inward 
change might have taken place, still the person was not, 
in the estimation of those who acted under the commission, 
converted until he was immersed." 

(Page 530) "No man has any proof that he is 
pardoned until he is baptized." 

The following is the language of Alexander 
Campbell, used in his debate with Kice: — 

"Baptism, my fellow citizens, is no mere rite, no 
unmeaning ceremony, I assure you. It is a most intellec- 
tual, spiritual, and sublime transition out of a sinful and 
condemned state, into a spiritual and holy state. It is 
a change of relation, not as respects the flesh, but the 
spirit. It is an introduction into the mystical body of 
Christ, by which he necessarily obtains the remission of 
his sins" (Campbell and Rice Debate, 1844, page 442). 

"A man may get into some other church without 
baptism, but into Christ's church he cannot come" (p. 481). 

"These persons, however, of whom the apostle thus 

speaks, are all baptized persons every one of 

them. He never supposes such a case as is often before 



CAMPBELl/s MAIN DOCTRINE 55 

our minds a believing unbaptized man! such 

a being could not have been found in the whole apostolic 
age" (p. 409). 

"Whatever is essential to regeneration in any case, 
is essential to it in all cases" (p. 620). 

"Baptism for the remission of sins, is the only baptism 
of which the New Testament knows anything. There 

never was any other ordained by God John's 

baptism or Christ's baptism there is no other" 

(p. 495). 

"With regard to all this matter, which he has read 
from the Christian Baptist, I have only to say, I stand up 

to every word of it to the very letter" (p. 

355, where Campbell approves his words too verbose to 
quote here). 

The following is the language of Alexander 
Campbell, in his book, "The Christian System," 
almost a text-book with some of his followers : — 

"It is not faith, but an act resulting from faith, which 
changes our state" (Christian System, page 206). 

"The Apostle Peter, when first publishing the gospel 
to the Jews, taught them that they were not forgiven their 
sins by faith; but by an act of faith, by a believing 
immersion into the Lord Jesus" (p. 207). 

"Though they now believed and repented, they were 
not pardoned, but must 'reform and be immersed for the 
remission of sins'" (p. 208. The italics are Campbell's). 

"The commission for converting the world teaches that 
immersion was necessary to discipleship ; for Jesus said, 
'Convert the nations, immersing them into the name,' etc., 
and 'teaching them to observe,' etc. The construction of 
the sentence fairly indicates that no person can be a 
disciple, according to the commission, who has not been 
immersed" (p. 211). 

"Washing of regeneration and immersion are therefore 
only two names for the same thing" (p. 213). 

"To call the receiving of any spirit or any influence, 
or energy, or any operation upon the heart of man, 
regeneration, is an abuse of all speech, as well as a 
departure from the diction of the Holy Spirit, who calls 
nothing personal regeneration, except the act of immersion" 
(p. 215. The italics are Campbell's). 

"Immersion alone was the act of turning to God" 
(p. 223. The italics are Campbell's). 



5G CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"No man can, scripturally, be said to be converted to 
God until he is immersed" (p. 224). 

"It is, however, to me admirable, that the remission 
of sins should be, not merely unequivocally, but so repeat- 
edly declared through immersion, as it is in the apostolic 
writings" (p. 226). 

"None but those who have first believed the testimony 
of God and have repented of their sins, and that have been 
intelligently immersed into his death, have the full and 
explicit testimony of God, assuring them of pardon" (p. 62). 

"All the saints are said to be saved by immersion" 
(The Christian System, p. 252). 

"All who, believing, are immersed for the remission 
of their sins, have the remission of their sins in and 
through immersion" (The Christian System, p. 252). 

"Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent 
Pagans wherever they can be found, with all the pious 
Pedobaptists, we commend to the mercy of God" (The 
Christian System, p. 249). 

"But one thing we do know, that none can rationally 
and with certainty enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of 
heaven, but they who intelligently and in full faith are 
born of water, or immersed for the remission of their sins" 
(The Christian System, p. 249). (The italics are Camp- 
bell's). 

I desire the reader, if he has not read all the 
foregoing quotations from Campbell, to read them 
all, to read them all slowly and carefully, although 
a monotonous repetition. Because it was his habit 
at times (when seeking to escape from the logical 
results of his doctrine, or wiien it was shown to be 
odious) to say things that are reasonable, and that 
all Christians believe; just as if he did not press the 
foregoing w^ith emphasis. This is also a device of 
his followers. They urge their peculiar view r s w r ith 
fanaticism; but when the real truth of the Bible 
is set against them, and their special teachings are 
refuted, they clamor that they are not correctly 
pictured; and some hearers suppose that possibly 
there is some truth in the statement they often make, 



CAMPBELl/s MAIN DOCTRINE 57 

that they "only speak where the Bible speaks, and 
are silent where the Bible is silent." Such claim 
of theirs is untrue. 

To be fully plain, it must be repeated and 
insisted on, that Campbell sometimes flatly contra- 
dicted all the foregoing quotations from him (though 
never admitting mistake), and also made statements 
inconsistent with them; so that it is a habit of his 
follower, when Scriptures or reason are given 
showing genuine Campbellism to be false, or cruel, 
or ridiculous, to charge the opponent with misrep- 
resentation. But I have quoted Campbell himself 
with such fulness, and from so many places, on the 
doctrine which is known as Campbellism, the 
doctrine which he and his followers desired to 
establish, that the reader may see that I state the 
real position of Alexander Campbell and his 
followers. 

That he sometimes made statements inconsistent 
with the passages, I again freely and fully admit. 
But the pressure was according to the passages 
quoted; and in the inconsistent statements he was 
saying something foreign to the philosophy of his 
special doctrine, and which did not distinguish him 
from others. And his followers are not visibly 
interested in those things in which they agree with 
other Christians. 

His followers should abandon his doctrines, and 
repudiate Campbell as a religious instructor: for a 
teacher who will make the above statements, and 
contradict them while insisting on them, is an unsafe 
rabbi, , - 



58 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

In this book I do not oppose the truths that 
Campbell taught, but his errors. It was his errors 
which he succeeded in scattering, and which con- 
stitute Cainpbellism. 

Let us now consider all the passages which 
Campbell supposes teach immersion in order to 
remission. The number varies with different dis- 
putants; and we will consider those that are now 
commonly quoted. 

Let us see if they all, or any of them, support 
so dreadful a doctrine as that God will not forgive 
a penitent sinner, unless he is immersed in order 
to the remission of his sins ; a doctrine that puts the 
forgiveness of the sinner into the power of the 
preacher, who might refuse to perform the ceremony, 
thus preventing God from forgiving, though he 
might have such gracious wish. 



ACTS 2:38 

This passage is quoted by the follower of 
Campbell with as much frequency, probably, as any 
other. It was the language of Peter to the Jews 
on the day of Pentecost ; and when Campbell found- 
ed his theology, the prevailing translation (King 
James) of it was the following: — 

Acts 2 : 38. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost." 

That translation, as the Campbellite usually 
quoted it, seemed to say, in short, Be baptized for 
the remission of sins. And he usually wove it into 
his argument as if the word for meant in order to; 
that is, that the Jews were to be baptized in order 
to obtain remission of sins. But the American 
Version translates the passage as follows: — 

Acts 2 : 38. "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, 
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ unto the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit." 

And the "1911 Bible," notwithstanding its many 
blunders, translates as follows: — 

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized 
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit." 

The whole force of the passage to favor 
Campbellism, depends on the word for, of the old 



60 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

version, and unto, of the American version. To 
teach Campbellisin, these words must mean in order 
to. That is, the original Greek word must mean 
in order to, and the English words for, and unto, 
must be so understood. 

As proof to the reader that I do not misrepre- 
sent Campbell, again I refer to his words already 
quoted from "The Christian Baptist" : — 

"When a person is immersed for the remission of sins, 
it is just the same as if expressed, in order to obtain the 
remission of sins" (page 417). 

For further proof to the reader that I do not 
misrepresent Campbell, I take up the translation of 
the New Testament, called "Living Oracles," made 
by George Campbell, James Macknight and Philip 
Doddridge, with prefaces, emendations and an 
appendix by Alexander Campbell, all printed and 
published by Alexander Campbell, (third revised 
edition, 1833), and quote it to you as follows: — 

Acts 2 : 38. "And Peter said to them, Reform, and be 
each of you immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, in order 
to the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Spirit." 

This translation, which for brevity I hereafter 
call Campbell's, shows plainly that Campbell knew 
that the words "for" and "unto," or any equivalent 
word that might be used, did not necessarily express 
all that he, Campbell, wished to make people believe 
that Peter commanded. Campbell wished people 
to believe that Peter commanded the Jews to be 
immersed in order to obtain the remission of sins. 

Now quote the old King James Version, the one 
most commonly used in the days of Campbell, and 



acts 2 : 38 61 

quote it as the Campbellite often does, omitting the 
clause, "in the name of Jesus Christ" (a clause 
which plainly breathes of faith), and it sounds this 
way: — "Be baptized for the remission of sins." 

Now, in order that the reader may see emphat- 
ically that the word "for," in that command, does 
not necessarily convey the idea of purpose, ("in 
order to obtain"), I quote a number of sentences: — 

The boy was named for his uncle; 

He failed in business for a hundred thousand dollars; 

The father punished the boy for his disobedience ; 

Yesterday I ceased work for a week; 

Wickersham was attorney for the Government; 

Abraham Johnson voted for Andrew Jackson, although 
Jackson had long been dead; 

John Armstrong was left for dead on the battle-field; 

WilUam is tall for his age; 

After he was through, I paid Smith for his week's 
work; 

We run up the flag for Washington and Lincoln; 

I was on the ship Devonian for nine days; 

Pomeroy was imprisoned for life; 

Adams was respected for his virtues; 

Some people do not take medicine for a cold; 

and in such Scriptures as the following: — 

Acts 10 : 4. "Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up 
for a memorial before God;" 

Mark 1 : 42-44. "And straightway the leprosy departed 

from him, and he was made clean Go show 

thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things 
which Moses commanded." 

"Baptism for remission" can only be in the 
sense of that last passage, if Biblical. Our remis- 
sion has been received; and we are baptized in 
reference to it, with respect to it, unto it, acknowl 
edging it. To be baptized in order to remission 
would be to try to buy it of God; and if successful 
the forgiveness by God would not be an act of grace, 
but of sale. 



62 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

The reader will please observe that I do not 
claim that the word "for" never means "in order 
to :" for it sometimes does. But I claim that very 
often it does not mean "in order to," and sometimes 
cannot mean "in order to." To make this plain 
read the following passages, quoted from the "1911 
Bible," all from the book of Acts : — 

Acts 4 : 21. "So when they had further threatened 
them, they let them go, finding no way to punish them, 
because of the people : for all glorified God for what had 
been done." 

Acts 7 : 16. "The sepulchre that Abraham bought for 
a sum of money of the sons of Hamor, in Shechem." 

Acts 8 : 3. "As for Saul, he made havoc of the church." 

Acts 10 : 28. "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing 
for a man that is a Jew to keep company," etc. 

Acts 12 : 14. "And when she knew Peter's voice, she 
opened not the gate for gladness, but ran in, and told how 
Peter stood before the gate." 

Acts 13 : 11. "And now, behold, the hand of the Lord 
is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun 
for a season." 

Acts 15 : 14. "Simon hath declared how God for the 
first time visited the Gentiles." 

Acts 16 : 20-21. "These men, being Jews, do exceedingly 
trouble our city, and teach customs, which are not lawful 
for us to receive, being Romans." 

And thus we might go on at length. 

Therefore Campbell did wrong in his transla- 
tion, to insert the phrase "in order to" in place of 
the word "for," unless the original Greek word 
compelled him to do so. That matter I will take 
up later, and prove that Campbell falsified the 
Greek. But now I only point out that Campbell's 
translation coolly teaches that Peter instructed the 
Jews to be baptized "in order to the remission of 
sins;" showing that Campbell was not willing to 



acts 2 : 38 G3 

trust the English word "for." That word did not 
always express purpose; and by leaving it in the 
English he could not always make people believe 
that Peter commanded the Jews to be immersed in 
order to obtain the remission of sins. 

But to see how antagonistic Campbell was to 
real Christianity, I call attention to the following 
principles: — a man cannot successfully repent in 
order to secure remission, nor successfully believe 
in order to secure remission, and ought not to be 
baptized in order to secure remission. This is not 
an acceptable way to serve God. A man ought to 
have a higher motive when repenting, or believing, 
or being baptized, than that expressed in the phrase, 
"in order to remission" or a in order to obtain 
remission" A person who repents in order to 
remission is selfish, and is trying by theological 
trickery to outwit the angel who keeps the gate. 
True repentance means sorrow for sin, not negotia- 
tion for a treaty of safety. 

And this brings forward another element of 
rebellion on the part of Campbell. 

Even after the kingdom of Jesus is set up, ac- 
cording to his theology (on the day of Pentecost, 
Acts 2 : 38) , he is not willing for Jesus to have full 
authority. He is not willing for Jesus to remit 
the penitent's sins, unless some preacher helps. The 
poor penitent must get some preacher to baptize 
him, before Jesus, the King, can exercise his 

pardoning power This is royalty with a 

vengeance! It is more like a partnership: — Jesus 

and Company; or, Jesus and a preacher 

The traveler lost on the desert of Sahara cannot 



64 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

secure remission of sins by appealing to Jesus; he 
must be lost not only in this world, but the world 
to come, because there was no one there to help 
Jesus save him; no preacher there to baptise him. 

Does not Campbellism make Jesus a mere 
figure-head in his own kingdom, even after Camp- 
bell admits that the kingdom was set up? What 
is this but rebellion? That word is weak. 

To reach a positive conclusion in this argument, 
you will kindly indulge me in referring to the 
original of the New Testament, while discussing 
several of these passages : for Campbell, as you have 
already seen, was not satisfied with the King James 
Version. These references to the Greek will not 
continue through the whole discussion, nor be long 
enough in any case to be improperly wearisome. 

In Acts 2 : 38, the original Greek word trans- 
lated "for," which Campbell translates "in order 
to," is as (eis). Boys studying Greek often, or 
usually, translate it by the English word into: for 
the Greek word eis is one of direction, or limit: to, 
toicards, into, unto; and into is a convenient word 
to convey many such ideas. They never use in 
order to, nor in order to obtain. 'Et? cannot signify 
for, when the word for is used to convey the mean- 
ing, or sense, of purpose: for the word e« suggests 
direction, or limit. 

In order to show the seriousness and even 
arbitrariness of this investigation, at this point I 
quote the following words from Kuehncr's Greek 
Grammar : — 

"Each preposition has a fundamental meaning, which 
it everywhere retains, even when it is connected with two 



acts 2 : 38 65 

or three Cases ; but it receives various modifications accord- 
ing to the different Cases with which it is connected, 

because the local relation varies with each Case 

Originally all the prepositions were 'merely adverbs of 
place" (Kuehner, p. 421). 

In the work of Dr. Harrison, on "Greek 
Prepositions" (Lippincott and Co., I860), I find a 
long essay on the word, the part of which that bears 
on this argument I condense as follows, but using 
his language: — 

"Eis with the accusative is used to express purpose only 
where the object named by the accusative is of such a 
nature as to be obviously suited to express the end or 
object aimed at in the preceding action. Els does not 
itself contain the notion of purpose. In fact, it is only 
from the circumstances in which eis is used that it can be 
determined to have this sense of purpose" (Harrison, page 
223). 

My reader easily sees that there is nothing in 
the passage we are considering, Acts 2 : 38, which 
"obviously" thrusts the idea of purpose (or "in order 
to--) forward. The preposition, then, in the 
passage does not contain the idea of purpose. 
Therefore it is not in the passage. 

In order to see still more vividly that the Greek 
word Ik does not of itself mean purpose, let us 
quote the following passages from the writer who 
wrote Acts 2:38 (that is, Luke), and translate the 
word a? by Campbell's phrase in order to, and see 
if it makes sense : — 

Acts 6 : 11. "Then they suborned men, who said, We 
have heard him speak blasphemous words in order to 
Moses." 

Acts 8 : 39-40. "The eunuch saw him no more, for he 
went on his way rejoicing. But Philip was found in 
order to Azotus." 

Acts 9 : 1. "But Saul, yet breathing threatening and 



66 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

slaughter in order to the disciples of the Lord, went unto 
the High priest," etc. 

Acts 20:21. "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks 
repentance in order to God, and faith in order to our 
Lord." 

Acts 22 : 13. "And standing by me said unto me, 
Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And in that very hour 
I looked up in order to him." 

In the following passages, let us leave the word 
a? just where Luke used it, and the reader may 
insert the word for, or in order to, and see if it makes 
good sense : — 

Luke 24 : 47. "Repentance and remission of sins should 
be preached in his name eis all the nations, beginning from 
Jerusalem." 

Luke 10:36. "Which of these three, thinkest thou, 
proved neighbor unto him that fell eis the robbers?" 

Luke 12 : 10. "And every one who shall speak a word 
eis the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto 
him that blasphemeth eis the Holy Spirit it shall not be 
forgiven." 

Luke 15 : 17-18. "But when he came eis himself he said, 
How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough 
and to spare, and I perish here with hunger ! I will arise 
and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have 
sinned eis heaven, and in thy sight." 

The foregoing passages show plainly that the 
word as does not "obviously" suggest purpose ; 
indicating that the great grammarian, Dr. Harrison, 
was correct in teaching that the word eu did 
not of itself express purpose. Therefore in Acts 
2 : 38, Peter did not mean that the penitent was to 
be baptized for the purpose of securing the remission 
of sins, or in order to obtain the remission of sins, 
since the thought of purpose is not "obvious" in the 
history there. ... He may, how r ever, have a 
purpose in the action; such as to obey God, while 
being baptized for the remission of his sins, or unto 



acts 2 : 38 67 

the remission of his sins, or with respect to the 
remission of his sins, or typifying the remission of 
his sins : his sins having been already washed away, 
or forgiven : his purpose, all the time, being to obey 
his King. 

I make my impeachment of Alexander Camp- 
bell's theology more offensive still, by directing the 
reader to notice that after he has discrowned Jesus, 
by putting off the setting up of the kingdom to the 
day of Pentecost, he even then perverts the language 
of Peter ; his disloyalty to Jesus having so poisoned 
his intellect that he became disloyal to Peter also. 
He even seemed to strain to pervert. 

It is yet possible that the reader, who has been 
under the instruction of Alexander Campbell, may 

ask for the true meaning of Acts 2 : 38 I 

refer you to the new translation in its simplicity. 
The baptism is unto remission; with respect to 
remission; symbolizing remission; appropriate to 
remission; appropriate to the forgiveness already 
granted to "brethren" who had been "pricked in 
their heart," and had asked the apostles what to do. 

It should be remembered that when Peter and 
the others were preaching on the day of Pentecost, 
they were not addressing irreligious people, but 
devout and worshipful listeners, who sought to 
honor God, and were inquiring for their duty, 
saying to Peter and the other apostles, "Brethren, 
w T hat shall we do?" They spoke to these Pentecost 
Christian preachers as "brethren." But Peter had 
been denouncing their sin, in having killed the 
Prince of life : he had preached with such pungency 
and effectiveness that they were "pricked in their 
heart," and wished to do what now lay in their 



68 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

power to be right; to undo their wrong. Peter 
approves their penitent spirit, and when they ask 
"Brethren, what shall we do?" he confirms their 
confession spirit, saying, "Repent;" ye have sinned 
deeply ; continue to bewail your great transgression ; 
still weep with sorrow for your killing of Jesus: 
but remember that tears will not undo your crime, 
though God will forgive you, even now does forgive 
you, for the "promise is to you:" and since he for- 
gives you, make your faith in Jesus manifest by 
following him in the waters of baptism; yea, be 
baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, which will be a 
correct and righteous "doing" since you ask what 
to "do:" by being baptized in Jesus' name you will 
proclaim your faith in him: and baptism will be a 
dedication unto a new life, a life on the side of Jesus 
and a dedication unto a life appropriate unto the 
remission of your sins, which the baptism will 
typify. Your Christian baptism, your baptism in 
the name of Jesus Christ, will indicate that you 
have died unto your old life; and that you trust in 
him for the remission of your sins, and the baptism 
will be a proper testimonial unto that fact; a public 
declaration that you have repented of your sins, 
that your trust is in Christ, and that your sins have 
been washed away by his blood which you shed. 
Yes; turn to him fully; keep back no part of a full 
dedication; consecrate your lives in a public man- 
ner; be baptized in his name; it will typify your 
faith in the remission of sins offered by him who 
is "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of 
the world." In the public obedience, ye shall 
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

Baptism is not a sinner's currency, or legal 



acts ^: 88 m 

tender, which he can project upon God's attention, 
demanding remission for it. God forgives. He 
does not sell pardon. 

The pervading insincerity of Campbell's atti- 
tude toward Christ, and toward the books, Matthew, 
Mark, Luke and John, will appear plainly when the 
reader discovers that the follower of Campbell, 
although he rejects the authority of the four Gospels 
(on the ground that the kingdom had not been set up 
in their period), quotes them, when he can seem 
to make them teach his theology. It is in this 
spirit that he quotes Mark 1 : 4. 



MARK 1:4 

The following is the American Version's 
rendering : — 

Mark 1 : 4. "John came, who baptized in the wilderness 
and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of 
sins." 

In the King James Version it reads, "for the 
remission/' etc. 

Campbell's translation reads as follows: — 

Mark 1 : 4. "Thus came John immersing in the wilder- 
ness, and publishing the immersion of reformation for the 
remission of sins." 

Possibly, if this passage had occurred in the 
book of Acts, Campbell would have taken the liberty 
to translate the word a? (eis), (which the American 
Version translates by "unto," and the King James 
by "for") by the same phrase by which he translates 
it in Acts 2 : 38 : — "in order to." And this would 
have made the reader believe that John baptized in 
order to remission. 

Though Campbell does not take this liberty, his 
follower quotes Mark 1 : 4, along with Acts 2 : 38, 
where he does take the liberty; and thus he makes 
the reader believe that John baptized sinners in 
order to the forgiveness, remission, of their sins, 
even before the day of Pentecost. 

To see that the word as does not mean in order 
to, let us take some passages of this same evangelist. 
Mark, where he uses the word as in his gospel, and 



MARK 1:4 71 

put the phrase in order to in our English where Mark 
uses as and see how it sounds : — 

Mark 1 : 9. "Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and 
was baptized of John in order to the Jordan." 

Mark 1 : 12. "And straightway the Spirit driveth him 
forth in order to the wilderness." 

Mark 3 : 29. "Whosoever shall blaspheme in order to 
the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness." 

Campbell says that to be immersed for remis- 
sion is "just the same" as "in order to obtain the 
remission of sins" (Christian Baptist, p. 417). 
Then put that phrase in, in the foregoing passages, 
and see if it makes sense; that is, in order to obtain 
the Jordan; or, in order to obtain the wilderness; 
or, "blaspheme" in order to obtain the Holy Spirit. 

Still further :— 

All Christians, including the followers of Camp- 
bell, believe that faith precedes baptism in the 
Christian experience. Therefore, if we contend that 
as means into, with the sense of in order to, as is 
necessary to Campbellism, we are compelled to 
believe that a man is saved before he is baptized, 
anyhow; saved with all the benefits of a full 
salvation, including the new relation to Christ; 
because of the following Scriptures, in which, for 
the sake of clearness, I insert the word into (on 
which the Campbellite breathes the meaning in order 
to) where eis occurs in the Greek : — 

John 3 : 15. "Every one believing into him may have 

eternal life." 

John 3 : 18. "He that believeth into him is not judged." 
John 3 : 16. "Whosoever believeth into him should not 

perish, but have eternal life." 

These passages (I might quote many more) 
show plainly that the word ivs does not convey the 



72 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

meaning of purpose, as the phrase in order to invari- 
ably does. 

Observe, I do not state that there is never pur- 
pose implied in a statement of an action in which 
&s is used: for there sometimes is. But I state 
that the meaning of purpose does not belong to the 
word cis of itself; and the idea of purpose must be 
stated or implied from other words, or circum- 
stances, as Dr. Harrison teaches. 3 Et? is only a word 
of direction, or limit. John preached the baptism 
of repentance unto, or toward, or with reference to, 
remission of sins. His converts were to be baptized 
referring to the washing away of the sins which they 
had already experienced. 

The procuring cause of the remission of sins is 
plainly stated in Luke, as follows: — 

Luke 24 : 47. "That repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name unto all the nations, 
beginning from Jerusalem." 



But what right has the follower of Campbell to 
quote Mark 1: 4 to us, a passage referring to John's 
baptism, wiiich Campbell claims was not Christian 
baptism? John's baptism was long before the day 
of Pentecost, in a period during which Campbell 
claims that the kingdom had not been set up, and 
the gospel had not been preached. The very fact 
that he quotes it suggests that he rebels against 
candor and truth, as well as against Jesus. 

To illustrate still further the absurdity of 
Campbell's theory that John baptized the sinners 
in order to remission of sins, turn now to John's own 
statement : — 



mark 1:4 T3 

Mat. 3 : 11. "I indeed baptize you in water unto (eis) 
repentance." 

If as means in order to, it is clear that 
John said he baptized sinners in order to their 
repentance; that m, he baptized unrepentant sinners. 
But how could he get unrepentant sinners to con- 
sent, even if the immersion would have made them 
repent? And the difficulty that John must have 
overcome, on Campbell's theory, was stupendous : for 
(Mat. 3:5-6) there "went out unto him Jerusalem, 
and all Judea, and all the region round about the 
Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river 
Jordan, confessing their sins ;" all unrepentant sin- 
ners till John baptized them: for he baptized them 
in order to repentance, on Campbell's theory.' .... 
But it is evident that John could not have got such 
multitudes into the water in order to repentance. 

But John could have baptized sinners who had 
already repented. He could baptize them with 
respect to, referring to, unto, the repentance which 
they had already experienced. 

Thus it is again evident that the forcing of 
purpose into the preposition as is incorrect. 

Therefore Mark 1 : 4 does not mean that John 
baptized sinners in order to get their sins forgiven ; 
and it should not be quoted to create such a theory. 
It is, like all the rest of the Bible, entirely innocent 
of Campbellism. 



MARK 16:16 

But just as the follower of Campbell quotes 
Mark 1 : 4, to teach that baptism is for the purpose 
of securing the remission of sins, he often quotes 
Mark 16 : 16 to teach the same doctrine : 

Mark 16 : 16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved, but be that believeth not shall be damned." 

The American Version reads as follows: — 

Mark 16 : 16. "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." 

Alexander Campbell translated the passage as 

follows: — 

Mark 16 : 16. "He who shall believe, and be immersed, 
shall be saved; but he who shall not believe shall be 
condemned." 

My candid reader must clearly see that Jesus, 
in Mark 16:16, intended to discriminate between 
belief and baptism, as to their respective effective- 
ness in securing salvation. For he did not say, He 
that is not baptized shall be damned; or, as Campbell 
would have us suppose, He that is not immersed 
shall be condemned. But if Jesus had been a 
Campbellite he would have said so. The Book of 

Mormon (page 478) does say, "Whoso is 

not baptized, shall be damned." That would have 
been an easy clause for Jesus to insert. He knew how 
to say it. But he discriminated, and did not say it. 

But what a rebellious spirit it is toward the 
Master, to quote his words in a way he did not mean, 
making him teach the damnation of all Roman 



mark 16 : 16 75 

Catholics, all Presbyterians, all Quakers, most 
Methodists, many Congregationalists, AND ALL 
INFANTS in America, or wherever the parents do 
not have them immersed (as in the Greek Church) ! 

The doctrine of Campbell, "Be dipped, or ~be 
damned" has no "Thus saith the Lord" for it ; but a 
few passages of Scripture are put together to make 
the hearer believe that Jesus so taught; although 
Jesus carefully discriminated against such a cruel 
doctrine. 

How rebellious toward Jesus is the doctrine: 
banishing the Lord with his forgiving purpose from 
every foot of dry ground in the world ; that the Lord 
cannot forgive a man except under the water; 
putting the crown, the executive power of pardon, 
on a Campbellite preacher's head, who will appoint 
the time for the sinner's baptism, thus staying the 
outstretched hand of Jesus, the preacher determining 
when the penitent shall be forgiven. 

God proclaims, "Now is the accepted time;" but 
the follower of Campbell fights against God, when 
he announces to the sinners who have "come for- 
ward" confessing, I will ~baptize you to-morrow 
(when we can get the ice cut in the river, or we 
can get the baptistry ready, or I can get my baptizing 
suit from home) . 

But even the words of this passage, Mark 16 : 16, 
were spoken before the day of Pentecost, before the 
kingdom was set up (according to Campbell), and 
therefore they could not be law (according to Camp- 
bell). 

And what is the object of this fighting against 
God? Clearly, it is to establish another government 
(sect). 



ACTS 2:47 

But, mingled with this spirit of rebellion against 
the love of heaven, there is an anxiety to appear to 
be on the side of God ; and the follower of Campbell 
will quote Acts 2 : 47 among his favorite passages, 
as follows, according to the King James Version : — 

Acts 2 : 47. "The Lord added to the church daily such 
as should be saved.' , 

These words teach that the Lord adds to the 
church : for Paul may plant, and Apollos may water ; 
but it is God who gives the increase. But if Camp- 
bellism be true, the baptizer, the immerser, adds to 
the church. 

But quoting this passage gives an air of rever- 
ence for the kingdom of God, and of submission to 
the King ; and we would not criticise it, were it not 
quoted in such a way as to be framed into the 
baptism passages, making the careless hearer suppose 
that the Lord adds by human baptism. Such 
carpentry on the Bible is bad workmanship. 

The American version reads as follows: — 

Acts 2 : 47. "And the Lord added to them day by day 
those that were saved" (or, were being saved). 

But Alexander Campbell makes the language 
possibly more helpful to his theory, by translating as 
follows : — 

Acts 2:47. "And the Lord daily added the saved to 
the congregation ;" 



acts 2 : 47 77 

so that, if a hearer is already inclined to favor 
Canipbellisin, he vaguely imagines that the Lord adds 
those who have been saved by having been immersed; 
although baptism is not mentioned at all. And this 
is hardened into a conviction when the preacher 
glibly quotes passages in which baptism is men 
tioned ; such as Acts 22 : 16, so closely with Acts 
2 : 47, that the ear catches them together, and the 
baptism theory colors both. 



ACTS 22:16 
King James Version reads thus: — 

Acts 22 : 16. ''Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 

The American Version reads: — 

Acts 22 : 16. "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on his name." 

Campbell's Version reads:— 

Acts 22 : 16. "Arise, and be immersed, and wash away 
your sins, invoking his name." 

This passage is the first one, of all we have 
quoted, as urged by the follower of Campbell, which 
sounds like giving the pardoning power to man. 
It does say, in connection with baptism, "Wash 
away thy sins." 

But the Campbellite conceals from the student 
the historical fact that the command was addressed 
to a Christian man, whose sins had been previously 
forgiven. And he makes the passage seem to teach 
that a man by baptism could wash away his sins 
as he could remove dirt from his hands, As if 
God had said, Arise, sinner, and forgive yourself. 

Thus the follower of Campbell quotes it, with- 
out calling attention to the figure of speech, making 
it sound as if baptism literally washed away a man's 
sins ; thus taking away from the Lord the happiness 
of forgiving his child. 

The command, in Acts 22 : 16, is given by 
Ananias, the Christian, to Saul of Tarsus, the 



acts 22 : 16 79 

Christian, who had been recently converted on his 
way to Damascus. 

I make the claim that Saul (Paul) was already 
a converted man, in the kingdom, a Christian, fully 
forgiven and accepted of God, before he received this 
command from Ananias. After proving this, I will 
take up the language again, and get at its exact 
meaning, as revealed by the Greek, and by other 
Scripture. 

The only carnally minded witness whom I will 
quote is Alexander Campbell, who (when driven to 
it in public debate) used the following language 
concerning Saul: — 

"Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed." 
( See Campbell and Rice Debate, pages 524 and 516 : edition 
of 1844). 

As bearing on this statement, I remind you 
that Campbell's theory, in common with Christians, 
is that faith precedes baptism. If that be true, 
Paul was really pardoned before he was baptized. 

This is confirmed by the full history in Acts, 
9th chapter. 

When Saul was stricken to the earth by the 
great light and the heavenly voice, "Saul, Saul, why 
persecutest thou me?" his instant reply was, "Who 

art thou, Lord." evidently accepting 

as his Lord that being whom he saw, who had 
questioned him, and of whom he afterward spoke 
as having been seen by him there, and who 
(Ananias seemed to know) had "appeared unto" 
him. 

That he did instantly accept Jesus as his 
"Lord" is evident from the fact that from that 



80 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

moment he was obedient to Jesus; discontinuing 
his persecution of the disciples, and going to 
Damascus and waiting there as the Lord told Jtim 
to, for the fur titer commands of Jesus. For the 
following is what the Lord told him to do, Saul still 
being prostrate: — 

Acts 26 : 16-18. "But arise, and stand upon thy feet : 
for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to anoint thee a 
minister and a witness both to the things wherein thou 
hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto 
thee ; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, 
unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may 
turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan 
unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an 
inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me." 

This beautiful language to Saul (Paul) was 
immediately on his conversion, before he had risen 
from the ground, before he had heard anything 
about baptism, and before he had arrived at 
Damascus, where, days later, he received the com- 
mand to be baptized. 

But we will again consider this commission of 
Paul. 

Now let us go with Paul to Damascus, where he 
remains several days, without food and without 
sight. At the end of that time God told Ananias 
to visit him, to restore his sight. But Ananias 
objected, on account of the reputation of Saul as a 
persecutor. But the Lord said to Ananias, 

Acts 9:15. "Go thy way : -for he is a chosen vessel 
unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, 
and the children of Israel." 

Xow Saul could not have been a chosen vessel, 
or minister to God, because of any Jewish descent: 
for he did not belong to the tribe of Levi, nor to that 



acts 22 : 16 81 

of Judah. He belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. 
But he was, in the language of the Lord, a "chosen 
vessel." 

Ananias did not dispute further with the Lord, 
but obeyed him, and accepted Saul at the Lord's 
classification, and when he entered his presence he 
said, — 

"Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared unto thee 
in the way which thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou 
mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy 
Spirit" (Acts 9:17). 

And yet he had not been baptized. 

But he was "Brother Saul," and "a chosen 
vessel unto" the Lord. Surely the Lord did not 
choose an unforgiven man; and Campbell was once 
right when he admitted in public debate that 
"Paul's sins were really pardoned when he believed." 

Then Campbell must have rebelled not 

only against the sweet, forgiving laws of God, when 
he put forth the doctrine that baptism was in order 
to the remission of sins, but he must have rebelled 
against his own reasoning faculties, and against 
his own conscience. Verily, Campbellism is 
rebellion, and one of the most depraving doctrines 
morally, now taught in the name of religion. 



But what then is the meaning of Acts 22 : 16, 
if it does not mean that a man's sins are forgiven in 
baptism? 

The command, "Wash away thy sins," is 
figurative language, appropriately used in com- 



82 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

manding a ceremony that figuratively celebrates the 
cleansing from sin. 

This will appear plainly from the discussion 
of the next Scripture which I treat, that is used 
by the follower of Campbell, to establish the dogma 
of water salvation (1 Peter 3:20-21). 



I. PETER 3:20-21 

Alexander Campbell translates this passage as 
follows : — 

1 Peter 3 : 20-21. "In the days of Noah, while an ark 
was preparing, in which few, that is, eight souls, were 
effectually saved through water: the anti- 
type, immersion does also now save us, (not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh; but the seeking of a good 
conscience toward God)." 

That translation is correct in part: "saved 
through water," instead of the King James' "saved 
by water." 

But the portion, "immersion does also now save 
us," taken together with the last clause, "the seek- 
ing of a good conscience," makes it look as if in 
baptism a man sought a good conscience, but raises 
another perplexity: — What kind of a conscience is 
it that seeks a good conscience? Is it an evil 
conscience that seeks a good conscience? 

But the American revision corrects, in part, this 
perversion, by translating as follows: — 

1 Peter 3 : 20-21. "In the days of Noah, while the ark 
was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were 
saved through water : which also after a true likeness doth 
now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience 
toward God." 

But even this translation does not reveal the 
meaning of Peter as plainly as was possible; as the 
translators evidently realized: for in the margin 
they have suggested, instead of the word "interro- 



84 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

gation," the use of the word inquiry, or appeal; the 
inquiry of a good conscience, or the appeal of a 
good conscience. And either one of these readings 
is more harmonious with the truth; that the good 
conscience makes the interrogation, or makes the 
inquiry, or makes the appeal. That is, the good 
conscience demands baptism; the good conscience 
toward God appeals for baptism. 

And Alexander Campbell would have been less 
guilty, if he had recognized in part the theology 
suggested by the King James Version, which trans- 
lates the passage as follows: — 

1 Peter 3 : 20-21. "In the days of Noah, while the ark 
was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were 
saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God)." 

And this would have been plain, if the trans- 
lators had used in the English the order and style 
of the Greek nouns, and had translated the Greek 
genitive case by the English possessive case, as here 
they might have done, thus: — "not flesh's putting 
away of filth, but good conscience' demand toward 
God." 

And such interpretation is compulsory: for 
Peter warns his readers by the clause, (that is his 
point), a not the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh;" that is, sin. He evidently means that bap- 
tism is not the putting away of sin. Sin has 
already been put away, and baptism is the require- 
ment of a good conscience; a good conscience 
toward God requires baptism, because God com- 
mands it. And it is a figure of the washing away 



i. peter 3 : 20-21 85 

of sin, and thus a type of salvation: "the like 
figure." Thus we are, in figure, in symbol, saved 
by water. But we must remember not to strain 
the figure: for, literally, it was the ark that saved 
Noah and his family; and saved them from water. 

Even Campbell would not deny that Noah and 
his family, the "eight souls" that "were saved 
through water," were righteous, and had the full 
grace of God before they entered the ark and passed 
through the water of the flood. In fact, it was 
because they were righteous that they were chosen 
to be saved through water. And because they were 
righteous, and had the full favor of God, the water 
of the baptismal flood did not destroy them, as it did 
those who were sinners when the baptism came. 
No man goes into the baptismal water a sinner, and 
comes out a Christian. 

1 Peter 3 : 21 thus explains Acts 22 : 16. 

It is plain, that if 1 Peter 3:21 be true, 
Campbellism cannot be true: for baptism is only 
the "figure" of salvation, the "figure" of the washing 
away of sin, and not the salvation itself. "Paul's 
sins were really pardoned when he believed;" and 
from that time he was a "chosen vessel" unto the 
Lord ; and because he had a good conscience toward 
God, he obeyed the command, "Arise and be bap- 
tized, and wash away thy sins." 

Still further:— 

We are driven to the belief that baptism is a 
"figure" of the washing away of sin, by the fact that 
in the Greek, in Paul's case (Acts 22:16), the 
grammatical middle voice is used ; and the full force 
of the Greek is this: — Wash away by yourself (or 



86 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

for yourself) your sms. This literal translation 
proves that the meaning is not literal. Even 
Campbell wishes a preacher to do the baptizing. 
All that Paul could do was to 6e baptized, as an act 
expressive of the washing away of sin, an act 
symbolizing the cleansing of his heart, which the 
water did not touch at all. Washing was a symbol 
familiar to the Jewish mind, not only because of the 
many ceremonial washings of the law of Moses, but 
because of such command as the following, given 
by God through his prophet : — 

Isaiah 1 : 16. "Wash you, make you clean ; put away 
the evil of your doings from before mine eyes." 

And the reality of which this is figure, is 
suggested by David in his prayer to God : — 

Ps. 51 : 2, 7. "Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, 

and cleanse me from my sin." "Wash me, and 1 

shall be whiter than snow." 

And baptism is the figure of the washing away 
of sin, a figure of remission, without limitation as to 
the time of the remission, except that it must 
already have' been received, or the figure is a vain 
one. For a man should be a soldier before he puts 
on the uniform. A general of an army should have 
his commission before he puts on shoulder straps. 

And this principle prevails in true religion, 
Noah was a "perfect man" before the baptism of the 
flood. Jesus was the Son of God before he was 
baptized. A little one born into a family is a child 
before he is washed, and his washing does not make 
him an heir. 

In 1 Peter 3 : 21, the language, "not a putting 
away of the filth of the flesh, but a good conscience' 



i. peter 3 : 20-21 87 

demand/' proves that baptism does not derive its 
beauty and excellency from its removing fleshly 
lusts, but from its being the demand of a good 
conscience; that is, a good conscience demands 
baptism. It is not valuable so much on account of 
being the type of the washing from sin even, as on 
account of being an act of obedience: a good heart 
demands the work. 

And by the association of ideas we are now led 
to the banks of the Jordan: we see the Baptist in 
the water, and hear him exhorting the Jews to 
"repent :" but toward the river bank there comes one 
with humble yet royal tread; the crowds yield him 
a passage, their attention being attracted to the 
advancing King by the ardent gaze of John the 
preacher, who has already ceased his discourse in the 
presence of a greater teacher: into the water 
advances the Messiah and solicits baptism at the 
hands of man: the gaze of John sinks beneath the 
eye of the King of glory, and he humbly answers, 
"I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou 
to me?" But Jesus commands, "Suffer it to be so 
now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous- 
ness." Now the Baptist, obedient to his Lord, 
buries Jesus in the waters of Jordan; not to put 
away the filth of the flesh, for Jesus was pure ; not 
to wash away his sins, for the Savior was without 
sin ; but, to "fulfil all righteousness ;" on account of 
the demand of Christ's good conscience, and because 
his heart called him to righteousness (cis) toward 
God. 

Baptism does not literally save; but the rising 
from the water, in the opinion of those who believe 



88 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

in immersion, is a figure of the resurrection. It 
does not save by the putting away of the filth of the 
flesh; and is too glorious an ordinance thus to be 
prostituted to sinner's currency, to use in demanding 
remission of the Lord. It is a Christian deed, 
demanded by a good conscience, and is pleasing unto 
God. 



JOHN 3:5 

The follower of Campbell quotes this passage in 
support of his doctrine. In the King James 
Version it reads as follows : — 

John 3 : 5. "Except a man be born of water, and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

Alexander Campbell translated it as follows: — 

John 3 : 5. "Unless a man be born of water and Spirit, 
he cannot enter the kingdom of God." 

The American Version makes the tremendous 
meaning of Jesus far more impressive: for it reads 
as follows: — 

John 3:5. "Except one be born of water and the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

(Not one of these translations is correct; but 
the last one would be, if the word the, immediately 
before Spirit, were omitted). 

In this passage, occurring in the conversation 
between Jesus and Mcodemus, the follower of 
Campbell claims that "born of water" refers to 
baptism. 

And he does this, although he simultaneously 
claims that the baptismal law of the kingdom of 
God was not yet in force, that Peter had not yet 
opened the gates because he had not yet delivered 
the discourse of the day of Pentecost, which made 

baptism a Christian institution How 

then could Nicodemus understand, without Jesus' 



90 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

explaining that this was in the future to become the 
law ? At the time of the conversation, if Jesus had 
meant baptism, it must have been John's baptism, 
according to Campbell's theory. 

But this mistake, that "born of water" means 
baptism, has been made by many others, notwith- 
standing the paraphrase of Jesus, "That which is 
born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of 
the Spirit is spirit;" in which paraphrase Jesus 
makes the birth of water a figure of the birth of 
flesh. 

A little later (John 3:10) Jesus expressed 
surprise that Nicodemus did not understand him : — 
"Art thou the teacher of Israel, and understandest 

not these things?" But how could 

Jesus suppose that Nicodemus could understand the 
subject of Christian immersion? For, as far as 
Bible history reveals, up to this time Jesus had not 
given any instructions on the subject of baptism, 
although he had been baptized with John's baptism. 
How then could Jesus honestly speak as if wonder- 
ing at the ignorance of Nicodemus? Christian 
immersion, according to Campbell, was a subject 
which was not to be made known till Pentecost. For 
Jesus to speak as if Nicodemus ought to understand 
the baptism idea, would make Jesus a pretender, 
acting as if he was surprised at the ignorance of 
Nicodemus on a subject which he, Jesus, well knew 
that Nicodemus could not possibly have any infor- 
mation, if Campbell's doctrines are true : for this is 
Campbell's language: — 

"Christian baptism could not be anticipated. Its facts 
must first transpire. They began to immerse into Christ 
on the day of Pentecost" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 
35G). 



john 3:5 91 

Therefore, if Christian baptism could not be 
"anticipated" how dared Jesus pretend to be sur- 
prised that Nicodemus did not understand that 
"born of water" meant what Campbell teaches? 
For Jesus to feign surprise would have been deceit- 
ful and immoral Thus Campbellism not 

only takes the crown off Jesus' head, but takes away 
the beauty of his character. 

But, on the other hand, if Jesus had referred 
only to the two births, of flesh and spirit, surprise 
at Nicodemus' ignorance was legitimate: for all 
humanity knew of flesh birth, and the prophets of 
Israel had taught spirit birth, sometimes speaking 
plainly of the "new heart." Nicodemus ought to 
have known all that; and it was surprising that he 
did not. 

Besides, if Christian baptism was not yet 
established, if Jesus did mean baptism in John 3 : 5, 
he must have referred to John's baptism; thus 
making the baptism of his forerunner forever indis- 
pensable And thus Campbell would 

even rob Peter of the Campbellite glory of the 
setting up of the kingdom. 



But it is certain that "born of water," in Jesus' 
language, does not refer to baptism. 



(But before we prove that, let us emphasize the 
well known principle that whatever is "born" 
partakes of the nature of that which gave it birth. 
If "born of water" means baptized, then those who 



92 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

are baptized partake of the nature of that in which 
they are baptized, water; that is, their supposed 
birth in baptism makes them watery; possibly thin, 
or liquid, or cold, or soggy, or unstable, or loving 
water, as if water were their mother, they being 
born of it. The spirituality of religion disappears. 
They are not cleansed by the blood of Christ, but by 
the water of baptism. This may explain why some 
theologians contract their religion to three points: 
faith, repentance, baptism; the greatest of these 
being baptism. And in the progress of the sinner 
into the kingdom the preacher gives the greatest 
emphasis to the matter of baptism, repentance being 
practically eliminated; the water of baptism being 
supposed to do the cleansing.) 



Now let us prove that the phrase "born of 
water," in John 3 : 5, does not refer to baptism. 

If you turn to the Greek, you will notice that 
the word which is translated "man" by 1he King 
James Version, and by Campbell, is rU. Tim 
is an indefinite pronoun, most sweeping in its 
signification, designed to be universal in its 
application, and in this text has the force and 
meaning of any one. In the American Version it 
is translated one. 

Then, if the phrase "born of water" signifies 
baptism, the text practically reads thus: — Except 
any one be baptized he cannot enter the kingdom of 
God. 

Then, without baptism, even in the lifetime of 
Jesus, salvation could not be had either by the 



john 3:5 93 

lunatic, the idiot, the babe, or the thief on the cross 
(supposing baptism to be exclusively immersion) : 
for Jesus said John 3 : 5 before his crucifixion and 
death. Just think of it; even in the lifetime of 
Jesus no one could be saved without immersion, 
according to the Campbellite interpretation of John 
3:5. 

And after the death of Jesus it likewise restricts 
salvation, dismally; so that the coming of Jesus to 
the world was not to bring good news, but evil 
tidings. And Eev. N. L. Rice, in his public debate 
with Campbell, in two different speeches quoted the 
language of Campbell from his work, Christianity 
Restored, (page 240), which Campbell in his replies 
did not stigmatize as incorrect, though Rice in two 
different speeches quoted it, as follows : — 

"Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent 
pagans, wherever they can be found, with all the pious 
pedo-baptists, we commend to the mercy of God" (Camp- 
bell and Rice Debate, pages 501 and 550). 

The reader easily sees that this is logical 
Campbellism, if the Campbellite interpretation of 
John 3 : 5 is correct ; and there is no promise of 
salvation for the classes commended to the mercy 
of God by the merciless Alexander Campbell. As 
now published, the foregoing language, quoted by 
Rice, may be found in Campbell's book, "The 
Christian System," page 249: a book which the 
Campbellites of our time cherish with a reverence 
only second to that which they give the Bible. 

Here in these later days the Campbellite winces. 
He shrinks from his own doctrine, for which he 
quotes 3 : 5 to prove that unless one is immersed 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. He says 



94 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

that he himself does not teach that immersion is 
essential to salvation; that he only quotes Jesus' 
language; that possibly God may save others; and, 

if so, God is responsible for it But 

would not this make God responsible for saving 
some without immersion (as when a Campbellite 
preacher is not around), but refusing to save them 
without immersion if a preacher is conveniently 
near to immerse them. Does not this make God's 
salvation narrower where there are Campbellites 
than where they are unheard of? If so, are they 

not an evil to mankind? But still the 

Campbellite vociferates that he does not quote John 
3:5 to prove that immersion is essential to 
salvation. 

Then what does he quote John 3: 5 for? 

He surely does not quote it, with his immersion 
interpretation of it, merely to make Jesus a bigot, 
while ashamed to be one himself and admitting that 
some have been saved without immersion. But if 
he admits this, Jesus did not mean that none can 
be saved without immersion. 

Or does the Campbellite mean that God will 
not endorse the doctrine of his Son (that men can- 
not enter the kingdom of God unless immersed), 
and that he will save Christian people who do not 
understand the Bible as the Campbellite does? 

But this makes a difference between 

God and his Son. It makes out Jesus as teaching 
that no one can enfer the kingdom of God unless 
immersed, and God as stultifying Jesus by secretly 
saving the unimmersed. 

But Jesus claimed that his Father approved his 
doctrine : — 



john 3:5 95 

John 7 : 16. "My teaching is not mine, but his that 
sent me." 

John 10 : 48. "The Father that sent me, he hath given 
me a commandment what I should say, and what I should 
speak." 

John 8 : 28. "As the Father taught me, I speak these 
things." 

John 12 : 50. "Even as the Father hath said unto me, 
so I speak." 

For a Campbellite to represent Jesus as saying 
that only the immersed can enter the kingdom of 
God, although the Father will admit others, is to 
make Jesus disobedient to his Father, or guilty of 
falsehood, or ignorant: and is only another form of 
rebellion. It is again plaiting a crown of thorns 
(logic) and putting it on the King's head. It is 
again deriding his claim to sovereignty; and again 
it takes the reed scepter from his hand and smites 
the crown of thorns, while the preacher winks to his 
brother, saying, "He thought he could shut the king- 
dom of God to all except the immersed ; ha ! ha ! as 
if he had authority. But we know his Father's 
mercy, although we will be "silent" about it; we 
will only preach what Jesus said. Thus we will 
make the people believe that only the immersed will 

enter the kingdom of God Or, it is 

again blindfolding Christ with the bandage of 
ignorance of what God would do, smiting him, and 
demanding, Who smote thee? Thou canst not tell 
us from real subjects. See us bow the knee before 
thee." 

But turn back again What does 

the Campbellite quote John 3 : 5 f or ? 

Is it not to make men believe that unless a man is 
immersed he cannot enter the kingdom of God? 



96 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

But who can bear that? When we 

turn the doctrine back on the Campbellite he begins 
to talk about the mercy of God, and his own "being 

silent where the Bible is silent." 

Well; then, as Jesus did not say it, and did not 
even mention baptism, and no one else believes it, 
not even Campbell, let not the Campbellite force it 
into the Savior's mouth or meaning. Let him not 
roar baptism into John 3 : 5 when the text is "silent" 
on baptism. Let the Campbellite be "silent," too. 

Jesus did not come to put the kingdom of 
heaven on an island. If Campbellism be true. 
Jesus' "gospel" is no gospel at all. It is not "good 
news," nor glad tidings: for it narrows the door 
of salvation, or puts it in a river. In Holy Writ 
it is plainly taught that "Abraham believed God, 
and it was imputed to him for righteousness." But, 
according to Campbell, after Christ came, baptism 
also would have been needed. During the law and 
the prophets, repentance and faith secured the 
remission of sins; but under Campbell's theory 
immersion also is required ; proving that Campbell's 
dispensation cuts off more from the favor of God 
than legal Judaism. But Jesus did not claim to 
have come to kill men, but to save them. He 
preached the "gospel." 

In controversy the Campbellite sometimes 
admits! that a man who cannot be baptized may be 
forgiven without it. But his theory is that if he 
can be baptized, he is not forgiven till baptized, even 
though he honestly intends to be. But this makes 
his ability to be baptized an evil, postponing his 
salvation. 



john 3:5 97 

Again: for what purpose does the Campbellite 
quote John 3:5? 

He cannot possibly have any other purpose than 
to prove that a person must be baptized in order to 
enter the kingdom of God. That is his whole point. 
And he incorrectly says that he is "silent where the 
Scriptures are silent, and speaks where the 
Scriptures speak." Nothing could be more untrue 
than such a claim : for he quotes John 3 : 5 with 
reference to immersion, which is not in the text. 
And he tries to make us believe from the words of 
Jesus in John 3 : 5 that there is no hope except to 
the immersed. The following is the language of 
Alexander Campbell himself: — 

"One thing we do know, that none can rationally and 
with certainty enjoy the peace of God, and the hope of 
heaven, but (sic) they who intelligently and in full faith 
are born of water, or immersed for the remission of their 
sins" (The Christian System, p. 249). 

"Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent 
pagans, wherever they can be found, with all the pious 
pedo-baptists, we commend to the mercy of God" (The 
Christian System, p. 249). 

Although the text is silent as to baptism, a 
genuine Campbellite would argue that it "signifies 
baptism," because "commentators" and "writers" 
say so; not because the Bible says so. His proof is 
human words, like the following language of Camp- 
bell, in which he makes baptism stand in the place 
of regeneration : — 

"Christian immersion stands in the place of the bath 
of purification in that most instructive system of types 
or figures, which God instituted to prepare the way of this 
new and perfect economy. 

'But Paul, in connecting the bath of regeneration with 
the renewal of the Holy Spirit, goes no further than the 



98 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Lord Jesus himself when he said, Except a man be born of 
water and of spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of 
heaven. 

"Paul reasons well, for most certainly when a man is 
born of water there is the bath of regeneration" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 402). 

Against such doctrine, which shuts up the 
kingdom of heaven even before the day of Pentecost, 
we quote Jesus' words: — 

Mat. 23 : 13. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against 
men." 



But no one, willing to be born of the Spirit, 
need be afraid of John 3:5: for 

(1st premise). Any interpretation of Scripture 
that damns infants is not true ; 

(2d premise). The Campbellite interpretation 
of John 3 : 5 damns infants ; 

(Conclusion). Therefore that interpretation is 
not true. 



Jesus never taught Campbellism, either before 
the day of Pentecost, or later. He never rejected 
one penitent for lack of baptism. He never said to 
any petitioner whatever, for any gift whatever, Go 
and he baptized, if thou wouldst he hlest. 



Let us still further illustrate Campbell's 
hostility to Bible ideas, and even Bible order, by 
quoting his words as follows: — 

"One thing we know, that except a child be born it 
cannot come into this world, and unless a man be born 



john 3:5 99 

of spirit and water he cannot enter the kingdom of Jesus'* 
(Christian Baptist, p. 269). 

In that language Campbell makes the order, first, 
birth of spirit; and second, birth of water. Whereas, 
Jesus put the order the other way: first, birth of 
w r ater; that is, the beginning of the physical life; 
second, birth of Spirit ; that is, the beginning of the 
spiritual life. 

And Paul agrees with this ; using the following 
words : — 

1 Cor. 15 : 46. "That is not first which is spiritual, 
but that which is natural; then that which is spiritual." 

But Campbell says, "Except a man be born of 
spirit and water he cannot enter the kingdom of 
Jesus." 

How pitiful, how sad, even how dreadful it 
would be for a man that was born of the Spirit to 
die before he could be "born of w r ater!" How 
miserable the Campbellites of heaven will feel as 
this man, born of the Spirit, approaches and asks 
admission to the kingdom of God, when they are 
compelled to "shut" the pearly gate against him, 
because he was not "born of water !" How unhappy 
the redeemed (who had been fortunate enough to 
get to the water after they had been born of the 
Spirit), as they sometimes stand on the ramparts 
of heaven, will feel as they see this poor soul, born 
of the Spirit, wandering around the w r alls, listening 
to the songs of praise to God; and sometimes, in 
his loneliness on the outside, and in his love for 
Jesus, trying to join his voice to the chorus on the 
inside, as they worship the Lamb that redeemed 
them with his precious blood! I wonder if they 



100 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

will not sometimes feel like going to the Great 
White Throne, and telling God that there is a 
wanderer outside the "kingdom," lost in the cold 
and darkness, who on earth had been born of the 
Spirit, but died before he could be "born of water ;" 
and will they not pray God to let him come in? 
And possibly the Good Shepherd, who on earth left 
the ninety and nine and went among the wolves to 
rescue the lost sheep, will himself go out, past the 
Campbellites that are holding the gate shut, into the 
gloom and chill, with his Father's permission, after 
this lost babe in Christ. You know God so "loved 
the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that 
whosoever believeth in him should not perish ;" and 
how can God allow that loving convert to stay out- 
side? It seems to me that Jesus will find this lost 
sheep, although not "born of water," according to 
the gate-keepers. Possibly it will not be hard to 
find him; he may be near the gate. Ah! this lost 
sheep will hear the call of the Shepherd, even as 

he did when born of the Spirit, he 

will hear the call and know the voice; and Jesus 
will find him, and bring him into the kingdom, past 
the scoffing Campbellites, who profess to speak only 
where the Bible speaks, and to be silent where the 
Bible is silent. 

If it be asked, If "born of water" does not refer 
to baptism, what does it mean? I answer, in the 
words of Jesus, "born of flesh." It was a Hebrew 
idiom. Bead again Jesus' words, the fifth and sixth 
verses in succession, to get Jesus' own explanation, 
or paraphrase, of his expression, "born of water:" — 

"Except any one be born of water and Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the 



john 3:5 101 

flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is 
spirit." 

If any one wishes to study the Hebrew figure 
in language which Jesus was using, let him examine 
the following passages: — 

Numbers 24 : 7. "Water shall flow from his buckets, 
and his seed shall be in many waters." 

Isa. 48 : 1. "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, who are 
called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the 
waters of Judah." 

Rev. 17 : 15. "The waters which thou sawest, where 
the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, 
and tongues." 

Proverbs 5 : 15. "Drink waters out of thine own 
cistern, and running waters out of thine own w T ell. Should 
thy springs be dispersed abroad," etc. 

Ps. 68:26. "Bless ye God in the congregations, even 
the Lord, ye that are of the fountain of Israel." 

Prov. 9 : 17. "Stolen waters are sweet," etc. 

Canticles 4 : 12. "A spring shut up, a fountain 
sealed," etc. 

Deut. 33:28. "And Israel dwelleth in safety, the 
fountain of Jacob alone, in a land of grain and new wine." 

Water, real water, is important in our physical 
and worldly life: and the Hebrews wove even its 
suggestions of life, or vitality, or flesh, or force, into 
many symbols in their prophecies, in some of which 
the figure is so plain from the suggestion of water 
that even the word water is not used: so that we' 
read the following passages, with many others, 
which it is remarkable that Mcodemus and modern 
Campbellites do not understand : — 

Dan. 11 : 10. "And his sons shall war, and shall 
assemble a multitude of great forces, w^hich shall come on, 
and overflow, and pass through; and they shall return and 
war, even to his fortress." 

Dan. 11 : 26. "Yea, they that eat of his dainties shall 
destroy him, and his army shall overflow; and many shall 
fall down slain." 



102 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Dan. 11:40. "And at the time of the end shall the 
king of the south contend with him; and the king of the 
north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with 
chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he 
shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass 
through." 

Dan. 9 : 26. "And after the threescore and two weeks 
shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing; 
and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy 
the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be 
with a flood, and even unto the end shall be war; 
desolations are determined." 

Isa. 8 : 6-8. "Forasmuch as this people have refused the 
waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and 
Reinaliah's son, now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth 
up upon them the waters of the River, strong and many, 
even the king of Assyria and all his glory : and it shall 
come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks; 
and it shall sweep onward into Judah; it shall overflow 
and pass through; it shall reach even to the neck; and the 
stretching out of its wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, 
O Immanuel." 

Isa. 28 : 2. "Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong 
one; as a tempest of hail, a destroying storm, as a tempest 
of mighty waters overflowing, will he cast down to the 
earth with the hand." 

Nahum 1 : 7-8. "Jehovah is good, a stronghold in the 
day of trouble; and he knoweth them that take refuge in 
him. But with an over-running flood he will make a full 
end of her place, and will pursue his enemies into 
darkness." 

Ask any physician concerning the birth of a 
child and water, with reference to nature's process, 
and he will probably tell you of water before birth 
and at birth; possibly revealing the fitness of the 
Hebrew symbol. And he may also discourse to 
you scientifically of the fact that water constitutes 
a large percentage of the flesh of the child after its 
birth. 

In the conversation betw r een Jesus and Nico- 
demus there is no hint of three births; such as the 
birth of flesh, birth of water, and birth of Spirit. 



John S : 5 103 

But in that conversation the following are the 
phrases indicating that both speakers had in mind 
two births, not three: — 

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born 
anew he cannot see the kingdom of God" (verse 3). 

"Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb 
and be born?" (verse 4). 

"Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born 
anew)." 

If Jesus had been speaking of three births he 
would probably have said. That which is/ born of 
the flesh is flesh, that which is born of water is water, 
and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 

But the various sayings of Jesus and Nico- 
demus imply that both speakers had the common 
idea of only one birth after the first; that is, not 
three in all, but two. Notice the following say- 
ings of the two speakers: — 

John 3:3 (Jesus). "Except a man be born again." 
John 3:4 (Nicodemus). "How can a man be born 
when he is old?" 

John 3:7 (Jesus). "Ye must be born again (or 
anew." 

John 3 : 8 (Jesus). "So is every one that is born of the 
Spirit" 

The follower of Campbell likens baptism to 
birth, on account of the suggestiveness of the act 
of emerging from the water, rising from the water, 
immediately after the immersion. On account of 
the candidate's being lifted up out of the water, 
he claims that he is "born of water." 

But by this he would have the man buried 
before he was born : for the Campbellite's only bap- 
tism is burial, immersion, for which he quotes 



104 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Rom. 6:4: "We were buried therefore with him 
through baptism." But, according to that, bap- 
tism is burial, not birth. Baptism is not the 
coming out of the water, but the being dipped, 
plunged, into the water. The Campbellite insists 
that baptism is im-mersion. So Campbell trans- 
lates it. Then it is not e-mersion. The emerging 
from the water is the resurrection from the burial 
of baptism. 

And if it be argued that the emerging from the 
water is baptism, and the e-merging from the water 
is the being "born of water," it follows that a man 
is born after he is buried; buried of water, and then 
born of water. 

Thus the Campbellite turns things upside 
down, destroying the symbolism of burial and resur- 
rection. 

But "born" never signifies merely coming out 
of, as out of a river. There must be with it the 
element of new life, propagation, generation. And 
the being that is born gets its life from that being 
of which it is born. Like begets like. That is, 
that which is born of man is man; that which is 
born of a sheep is sheep; that which is born of a 
dove is dove; that which is born of spirit is spirit. 
That which is born is young of the same nature, 
or kind, as that which gave it birth. No man is 
literally born out of literal water, else he would be 
a brook, or cistern. If coming out of something 
is being born of it, then coming out of a house is 
being born of it; and a man coming out of a house 
would be a small cottage; and he might be born a 



john 3:5 105 

dozen times a day, and by night might be a dozen 
houses, or a small village. 

But observe again the Campbellite contention 
in the main point. He quotes John 3 : 5 in such a 
way as to make it teach immersion; which makes 
it declare that except any one be immersed he can- 
not see the kingdom of God. 

He quotes the text to prove that outrage 
against God and his children, and should not be 
allowed to escape his own argument. His argu- 
ment from John 3 : 5 damns all idiots, all infants, 
all Episcopalians, all insane, all Eoman Catholics, 
all innocent pagans, all Quakers. 

His argument, in damning infants, proves itself 
false: for Jesus said, "Of such is the kingdom of 
heaven." 

But Jesus did not cut off any of the innocent. 
In John 3 : 5 he did not mean baptism at all ; he 
was referring to the natural birth, using a well 
known Hebrew idiom. 

If in John 3 : 5 "born of water" means literally 
coming out of literal water, born of the Spirit would 
mean coming out of the Spirit. And as the candi- 
date leaves the water behind, he would leave the 
Spirit behind. 

All explanations of John 3 : 5 which ignore or 
obscure Jesus' own paraphrase, or explanation, 
lead into error: for Jesus meant to set forth the 
opposites, "flesh" and "spirit;" and the two births, 
not three births. 

The birth of water is a figure for the natural 
birth. The new birth is the birth of spirit. It 
is a spiritual change wrought in us by the word of 



10G CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

God and the Holy Spirit. The word is the seed, 
It falls upon the intelligence, or enters by being 
heard. It is understood, admitted to be true 
(believed), and the sinner realizes his condition. 
This knowledge, which is not faith at all, but a 
mere intellectual acceptance of facts, moves the 
sinner (if he yields to the influence of the Spirit 
of God). The tears of grief, sorrow and humil- 
iation for sin water the fallen seed; which, being 
warmed by the Holy Spirit, exciting new desires 
for God, for forgiveness, for prayer, for goodness, 
developes faith and all the fruits of righteousness; 
and the sinner becomes a working Christian. 

When the Campbellite says that "born of 
water" means "baptized, he substitutes his own 
opinion for the word of Jesus. He is only 
guessing, and preaching his guess. We should not 
put our own words in the place of Jesus' words. 

But that is the very thing which the Camp- 
bellite does; putting immersion into John 3:5, 
although it is not there, and although Campbell 
himself said, 

"Whatever the Scriptures say, I say" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 269). 

"We use, in all important matters, the exact words of 
inspiration" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 784). 

So far is this from being true, that there is not 
a doctrine peculiar to Campbellism that can be 
worded in the language of inspiration; and there is 
not one of its important doctrines that does not 
directly contradict the "exact words of inspiration," 
as may be plain as we proceed. 



John 3:5 10? 

And if the Campbellite were really trying to 
preach the gospel as the New Testament reveals it, 
he would be as anxious about being "born of the 
Spirit" as he is about being "born of water." 



But what right has the Campbell follower to 
quote John 3:5 for law to us? He claims that 
the kingdom was not yet set up, when Jesus spoke 
those words. His theory excludes Jesus from the 
kingdom as a lawgiver: for his words were spoken 
before the dav of Pentecost. 



ROMANS 6:3-4 

With confidence the Campbell follower quotes 
Romans 6 : 3-4, of which the American Version 
reads as follows: — 

Rom. 6 : 3-4. "Or are ye ignorant that all we who 
were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his 
death? We were buried therefore with him through 
baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised from 
the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might 
walk in newness of life." 

Campbell's translation reads as follows: — 

Rom. 6 : 3-4. "Do you not know, that as many as 
have been immersed into Jesus Christ, have been immersed 
into his death? We have been buried, then, together with 
him by the immersion into death; that like as Christ was 
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father; so we 
also shall walk in newness of life." 

The King James Version reads as follows: — 

Rom. 6 : 3-4. "Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by 
the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
newness of life." 

Tt is discreditable to the candor of the 
American revisers that they made their translation 
worse than the King James, obscuring the idea of 
the original oaot (osoi) ("so many as"), which 
even Alexander Campbell recognized by the trans- 
lation, "as many as." But I do not care about 
resting an argument on the phrase "so many as." 
However, a person could not be blamed, who would 



Romans 6:3-4 109 

suppose that the correlative oo-ot ("so many as") 
which is here used, indicated that some were not 
baptized. For Paul is the writer, and in address- 
ing the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:15-16) he said, "I 
thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus 
and Gaius; lest any man should say that ye were 
baptized into my name. And I baptized also the 
household of Stephanas: besides I know not 
whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me 
not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." 

This shows that Paul might easily have meant, 
when writing Rom. 6 : 3-4, that some of the Roman 
Christians were not baptized. 

"So many as," even "so many of us as," is a 
correct translation, although the words "of us" are 
not in the Greek: for they are shown in the person 
and number of the verb. As Paul says "so many 
of us as were baptized," it is implied that some "of 
us" were not baptized. The word "us" refers to 
Christians. Hence there were some Christians 
not baptized, possibly. This overthrows Campbell- 
ism. But I do not wish to rest there. 

In Romans 6 : 3-4 all the strength of the 
Campbellite claim rests on the phrase, "baptized 
into Jesus Christ." The Greek word translated 
"into" is as (eis). The most that can be claimed 
for it, in this case, is unto. 

When Paul wrote those words, Christ had 
ascended into the heavens, and it would have been 
impossible for any human being to baptize another 
human being into him The horrid sig- 
nificance of the phrase, "baptizing into Jesus 
Christ," is obscured by our familiarity with it, and 



110 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

the resulting unconscious effort of good people to 
attribute some spiritual meaning to it. But there 
is none. Baptism itself is a physical action. 

If, however, we were compelled to accept the 
word as as always meaning into, it would be neces- 
sary to accept it, unless we found the original text 
an interpolation. But as does not always mean 
into. Read the following passages, where I insert 
the word as in the place of the word by which 
the translators have rendered it, and see if you can 
put the word into in its place, and have good 
sense : — 

1 Cor. 8:12. "And thus, sinning eis the brethren, and 
wounding their conscience when it is weak, ye sin eis 
Christ." 

Mark 3 : 29. "Whosoever shall blaspheme eis the Holy 
Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal 
sin." 

Luke 15 : 18. "Father, I have sinned eis heaven, and 
in thy sight : I am no more worthy to be called thy son." 

But if the Prodigal Son had sinned into heaven, 
why was he not worthy to be called the son? If 
a man can blaspheme into the Holy Spirit, many 
would rejoice at the easy way of being swallowed 
up into the Spirit. If a man can sin into the 
brethren, and thereby sin into Christ, it would be 
more in harmony with human practices sometimes, 
than being born again. 

It is then evident that being "baptized lis 
Jesus Christ" is not necesarily being "baptized into 
Jesus Christ." 

Then what is the meaning? Let us find a 
similar Bible passage, one where there was baptism 
its a person, and we will be assisted in discovering 



Romans 6 : 3-4 111 

what "baptism as Christ" means. 1 Cor. 10 : 2 
reads as follows, in the American Version and 
others : — 

"Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed 
through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2). 

Here the Greek is positive: the fathers were 
baptized its Moses. (They were all baptized Its 
Moses; not like those baptized eis Christ, "so many 
of us as"). But every one knows that a great 
army of people could not be, by baptism or any 
other process, put into Moses. 

The translators have wisely rendered the text 
thus: "baptized unto Moses," thus giving to eis its 
true meaning. As necessity compels unto in 1 Cor. 
10 : 2, unto must be the meaning in the precisely par- 
allel passage in Romans 6 : 3, which thus remains in 
full harmony with the other Scriptures ; baptism be- 
coming a ceremony of open confession, a public rite 
of dedication to Jesus Christ, also symbolizing the 
washing away of sins which the candidate is sup- 
posed to have experienced. 

But what right has the follower of Campbell 
to quote Rom. 6 : 3-4 to us to support his conten- 
tion; se'eing that he has quoted John 3: 5 ("born of 
water") to us as meaning baptism. Rom. 6:3-4 
makes baptism to be burial, not birth. According 
to the Campbellite contention, baptism is immer- 
sion, burial. We are "buried" in baptism, not 
"born." The rising from the water is not even 
symbolical of birth ; but of resurrection, which does 
not follow birth, but burial. Remember our 
discussion of John 3 : 5. 



MATTHEW 28:19 

In the King James Version this passage reads 
as follows: — 

Mat. 28 : 19. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." 

The reader will please observe that "remission 
of sins" is not mentioned in this passage at all. A 
little later I will disclose why Campbell quotes it. 
But now I wish you to turn to another Gospel, 
Luke 24 : 45-48, where the historian records some of 
the last instructions of the Savior: — 

Luke 24 : 45-48. "Then opened he their minds, that 
they might understand the scriptures; and he said unto 
them, Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, 
and rise again from the dead the third day; and that 
repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his 
name unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are 
witnesses of these things." 

In this report of the last instructions of Jesus, 
you see that baptism is not even mentioned, but 
"remission of sins" is mentioned. It is mentioned 
in connection with a spiritual experience, "repent- 
ance," suggesting that remission is the reward of 
it; that is, that repentance is followed by the 
remission of sin, as it ought to be, if God looks not 
on the outward appearance, but looks on the heart. 

All must admit that the evangelist Luke under- 
stood the genius of Christianity better than 
Alexander Campbell; and yet in Luke's report of 
Jesus' last instructions to his disciples, baptism in 



MATTHEW 28 : 19 113 

water is not mentioned. Not only so, but Luke, 

in his later history, the book of Acts, makes a 

statement that shows that he could not have held 

Campbell's doctrines: for if Campbell had been 

reporting the last instructions of Jesus he would 

not have omitted mention of "the gospel in water," 

baptism in order to remission. But Luke omitted 

it; and yet in his later history he used the following 

language about it: — 

Acts 1 : 1-2. "The former treatise I made, O Theophi- 
lus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to 
teach." 

This language indicates that when Jesus used 
the words recorded in Mat. 28 : 19, it was not meant 
that the baptism was in order to remission; or 
Luke, when reporting Jesus' last commands, would 
have mentioned baptism in order to remission. But 
Luke did not; and yet he claimed to have written 
concerning "all that Jesus began both to do and 
teach ;" which certainly proves that he included all 
that was essential to remission, or salvation. 

Therefore his omission of baptism, when he was 
speaking of the remission of sins, in Luke 24 : 47, 
must have been because such a connection had not 
been impressed on his mind, even as it had not been 
impressed on Matthew's mind. Both historians 
omitted the Campbellite idea. Therefore Jesus 
did not teach it. 

Then why is Mat. 28 : 19 quoted by the follower 

of Campbell as a proof text for water salvation? 

We turn to Campbell's translation: — 

Mat. 28 : 19. "Go, convert the nations, immersing them 
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Spirit." 



114 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

The American translators have in a measure 
accepted the spirit of Campbell's translation, and 
make Jesus to command his missionaries to 
"baptize them into the name," etc. 

But how can anybody baptize anybody else 
into a name? It cannot be done. It is obviously 
a mechanical and physical impossibility. But you 
can baptize into water. 

Baptizing into a name is an operation that only 
modern theologians have tried to perform. The 
King James Version did not so express the com- 
mand. And it is not the doctrine of Jesus. The 
same Greek word its is here used, that we referred 
to in Acts 2 : 38, which the translators have taken 
the liberty to pervert to into, following Campbell; 
although in Acts 2 : 38 they translated it unto. 

It is not necessary to argue, after the preceding 
discussion, that in Mat. 28 : 19, as means unto. The 
believers are to be baptized unto, and by that 
ceremony dedicated unto, the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And to be 
baptized unto the name of God is to be dedicated, 
or consecrated, unto God. 

This explanation, in its very statement, carries 
with it so much force, as truth often does, that it 
is not needed to argue at length; especially seeing 
that Campbell's theory uses Mat. 28 : 19 to convince 
students that being baptized into a name proves 
that the purpose of baptism is the remission, or to 
procure the remission, or in order to the remission 
of sins. It has no support for that doctrine at all, 
except by the command to baptize. And we may 



MATTHEW 28 : 19 115 

consider another Scripture claimed to teach water 
salvation. 

But the Campbellite ought not to quote Mat. 
28:19 at all: for it was spoken before the day of 
Pentecost, when, according to his theory, the gospel 
was first preached. 



ACTS 19:5 

The American Version reads as follows: — 

Acts 19 : 5. "And when they heard this, they were 
baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus." 

This incident (the finding of certain men at 
Ephesus who claimed to have received the baptism 
of John the Baptist, and Paul's rebaptizing them) 
is quoted by the follower of Campbell as if John's 
baptism, being before the day of Pentecost, was not 
Christian baptism. The whole incident, as related 
in the American Version, reads as follows: — 

Acts 19: 1-7. "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos 
was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper 
country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples : and 
he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye 
believed? And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so 
much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was (given). And 
he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, 
Into John's baptism. And Paul said, John baptized with 
the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they 
should believe on him that should come after him, that is, 
on Jesus. And when they heard this, they were baptized 
into the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had 
laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them ; 
and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And they 
were in all about twelve men." 

It is evident that the follower of Campbell mis- 
understands the incident. Those twelve persons 
were not rebaptized because John's baptism was to 
be rejected; but because, through some error or 
other cause, though they had previously received 
what they supposed to be John's baptism, really 



acts 19 : 5 117 

they had been so ignorant of the religion John 
preached, that they did not even know there was a 
Holy Spirit, and did not know John's preaching 
concerning the Christ. 

These persons did not know there was a Holy 
Spirit. And yet John, whose baptism they claimed 
to have received, was emphatically a Holy Ghost 
preacher; as is demonstrated by the following 
Scriptures : — 

(John's words concerning the Holy Ghost and 
Jesus) : — 

Mat. 3 : 11. "I indeed baptize you in water unto re- 
pentance : but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, 
whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you 
in the Holy Spirit and in fire." 

John 1 : 32-34. "And John bare witness, saying, I have 
beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and 
it abode upon him. And I knew him not: but he that 
sent me to baptize in water, he said unto me, Upon whom- 
soever thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding 
upon him, the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit. 
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the 
Son of God." 

(Words of the angel about John before his 
birth) :— 

Luke 1 : 13-15. "Thou shalt call his name John. And 
thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice 
at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the 
Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and 
he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his 
mother's womb." 

These Scriptures positively prove that John 
preached about the Holy Spirit, and he was filled 
with the Holy Spirit, even from his birth. But 
the twelve men at Ephesus did not even know that 
there was such a thing as a Holy Spirit; and they 
seem in some way to have been ignorant of Jesus 



118 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

also: for Paul told them (Acts 19:4) that John 
had "said unto the people that they should believe 
on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus. 
And when they heard this, they were baptized unto 
the name of the Lord Jesus." 

Is it any wonder that Paul rebaptized men who 
had not heard of the Holy Spirit, or Jesus? 

But the Campbellite still argues that even 
Jesus implies that John the Baptist was not in the 
kingdom of heaven because he said (Mat. 11:11), 
"There hath not risen a greater than John the 
Baptist : yet he that is but little in the kingdom of 
heaven is greater than he." But the Camp- 
bellite in quoting those words in this manner 
misleads the hearer: for the phrase "kingdom of 
heaven" sometimes refers to the future home of the 
saved, of which Jesus says (Mat. 8:11), "Many 
shall come from the east and the west, and shall 
sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in 
the kingdom of heaven : but the sons of the kingdom 
shall be cast forth into the outer darkness: there 
shall be the weeping and gnashing of teeth;" all 
which plainly alludes to the future life. Jesus was 
not so foolish as to teach that the least follower of 
Christ in our time on earth was greater than John 
the Baptist. Think of it for a moment, and you 
will easily realize that Jesus did not mean that a 
Christian barely saved, possibly converted on his 
dying bed, who had always previously lived a sinful 
life, was greater than John the Baptist, who had 
been full of the Holy Spirit from his birth, and who 
at Jordan pointed Jesus out, saying, "Behold the 
Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world." 



acts 19 : 5 119 

For another reason I state that the Campbellite 
is wrong in arguing that Paul rebaptized the 
twelve men at Ephesus on the ground of the 
inefficacy of John's baptism: for John's baptism 
was all that Jesus himself ever received. 

Therefore we repeat that the twelve men at 
Ephesus were rebaptized, because they had really 
been ignorant of much of the religion which John 
preached: they do not seem to have known of the 
Holy Spirit, or of the Christ, although John 
preached both doctrines. 

But when the Campbellite argues that when 
Paul baptized those twelve men "into the name of 
the Lord Jesus" (as the American Version has it), 
they were baptized in order to the remission of their 
sins, he again rests his argument on that slippery 
Greek preposition as: for the word in the Greek 
that is translated "into" is Its; which we have 
already stated has no meaning of purpose in it, 
unless such meaning is found in the other words of 
the sentence. I refer to the discussions on Acts 
2 : 38 ; Mat. 28 : 19 ; Mark 1 : 4 and Rom. 6 : 3-4. In 
this passage, Acts 19 : 5, the meaning is, "They were 
baptized unto the name of the Lord Jesus;" thus 
being dedicated publicly to his service. And Acts 
19 : 5 should have been correctly translated ; being 
equally an innocent passage with the rest of the 
Bible. 



I. CORINTHIANS 12:13 

Alexander Campbell translates as follows: — 

1 Cor. 12 : 13. "For, indeed, by one Spirit, we all have 
been immersed into one body; whether Jews or Greeks; 
whether slaves or freemen; and have all been made to 
drink of one Spirit." 

The American Version reads as follows: — 

1 Cor. 12 : 13. "For in one Spirit were we all baptized 
into one body," etc. 

This text is quoted to prove that in water we 
are all immersed into one body. But the text does 
not speak of water at all; but plainly teaches 
Spirit baptism. But the follower of Campbell 
wishes us to believe that water baptism procures 
the remission of sins ; that in water we are baptized 
into the one body. But this passage directly 
refutes Campbellism. 



TITUS 3:5 

Alexander Campbell translates as follows: — 

Titus 3 : 5. "He saved us, not on account of works of 
righteousness which we had done, but according to his 
own mercy, through the bath of regeneration, and the 
renewing of the Holy Spirit ; which he poured out on us 
richly through Jesus Christ our Savior." 

At first we are in darkness as to the object of 
the follower of Campbell in quoting Titus 3 : 5 to 
support his doctrine: for the text teaches spiritual 
religion, regeneration, etc. 

The American Version reads as follows: — 

Titus 3 : 5. "Not by works (done) in righteousness, 
which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he 
saved us, through the washing (laver) of regeneration and 
renewing of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us 
richly, through Jesus Christ our Savior." 

On considering the text, or hearing the 
preacher teach Campbellism, we discover the reason 
for quoting Titus 3:5; there is a washing, bath, 
laver, spoken of. And then the genuine Camp- 
bellite infers water baptism. 

But water baptism is a work of righteousness 
(see Jesus) ; and the apostle says, "not by works," 

"which we did ourselves;" "but through 

the washing of regeneration." This shows that the 
"washing of regeneration" was not a work of 
righteousness which we did ourselves. But it is 
certain that water baptism is a work of righteous- 
ness: for Jesus, when baptized, spoke of "fulfilling 



122 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

all righteousness." But what is that but doing 
it fully? That which is done is a deed. Then 
baptism is a deed of righteousness, and is not the 
washing of regeneration. 

But the text teaches that we are saved by the 
washing of regeneration and the renewing of the 

Holy Spirit Certainly we are not saved 

without the remission of our sins. Then our sins 
are remitted, either in the washing of regeneration, 
or the renewing of the Holy Spirit. This being 
true, it is false that we are baptized by man in 
order to the remission of our sins. 

Titus 3 : 5 does not teach Campbellism. For 
the "washing of regeneration," in the genuine 
Christian experience, is so repugnant to exact 
Campbellism that repentance itself loses its 
spiritual element, and thus is done away with 
entirely. This is a peculiarity necessary to the 
philosophy of Campbellism, which I will treat later. 
But now, that I do not misrepresent it, will appear 
plainly from Campbell's translation in the follow- 
ing passages (as well as others I do not quote), 
where you will see that repentance is so repugnant 
to him that he excludes it entirely; except as bound 
up, or unless included, in the word reform, or 
reformation; practically making the beginning of 
the Christian career, not a thing of life ("regenera- 
tion"), but a matter of form (re-form, or re-for- 
mation, a new formation), an exterior matter, a 
matter of form, or appearance, a matter of works. 
Campbell translates thus: — 

Acts 2 : 38. "And Peter said to them, Reform, and be 
each of you immersed in the name of Jesus Christ, in order 



titus 3:5 123 

to the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit." 

Acts 3 : 19. "Reform, therefore, and return to God, 
that so your sins may be blotted out." 

Acts 17 : 30. "For though God overlooked the times 
of ignorance, he now makes proclamation to all men, every- 
where, to reform." 

Acts 26 : 19-20. "From that time, King Agrippa ! I was 
not disobedient to the heavenly vision : but declared, first 
to them at Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and to all the 
country of Judea ; and then to the Gentiles, that they should 
reform, and return to God, performing deeds worthy of 
reformation." 

Mat. 3 : 8. "Produce, then, the fruit of reformation." 

Mat. 3 : 11. "I, indeed, immerse you in water, into 
reformation; but he who comes after me is mightier than 
I, whose shoes I am not worthy to carry. He will immerse 
you in the Holy Spirit, and in fire." 

Mark 1 : 4. "Thus came John immersing in the wilder- 
ness, and publishing the immersion of reformation for the 
remission of sins." 

Thus Campbell fights repentance out of the 
Christian life, moved by his rebellious philosophy 
of remission by works. It is the same philosophy, 
though using a different word, that we find in 
various places in the Eoman Catholic translation 
(Douay), where we find the phrase "do penance" 
instead of the word repent, or repentance. I 
illustrate by quoting a few passages: — 

Mark 1 : 4. "John was in the desert baptizing, and 
preaching the baptism of penance unto remission of sins." 

Mat. 3 : 11. "I indeed baptize you in water unto 
penance." 

Mat. 3 : 8. "Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of 
penance." 

Mat. 3 : 2. "Do penance : for the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand." 

Acts 26 : 20. "But to them first that are at Damascus, 
and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of Judea, and 
to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should do penance, 
and turn to God, doing works worthy of penance." 



124 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Acts 17 : 30. "And God indeed having winked at the 
times of this ignorance now declareth unto men, that all 
should everywhere do penance." 

Acts 2 : 38. "But Peter said to them : Do penance and 
be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of your sins." 

But Titus 3 : 5, teaching a washing of regen- 
eration, of being born again, "re-generated" refutes 
all such philosophies as mere "doing penance," or 
mere re-forming one's self, and not only does not 
teach Campbellism, but positively refutes it. 



EPHESIANS 5:26 

Alexander Campbell's translation reads as 
follows : — 

Eph. 5 : 25-27. "Husbands, love your wives, even as 
Christ also loved the congregation, and gave himself for 
it ; that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it with a bath 
of water, with the word. That he might present it to 
himself glorious, a congregation not having spot, or wrinkle, 
or any such thing; but that it might be holy, and without 
blemish." 

The American Version reads as follow r s: — 

Eph. 5 : 25-27. "Husbands, love your wives, even as 
Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it ; that 
he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing 
(laver) of water with the word, that he might present 
the church to himself a glorious (church), not having spot 
or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy 
and without blemish." 

In this Scripture, it would have been possible 
to suppose that Paul alluded to the sinner's 
salvation by baptism in water, if that doctrine had 
been taught elsewhere by Paul, or some Bible 
writer : for the "laver of water," or "bath of water," 
might harmonize with that thought ; although, when 
Paul wrote this language, baptism had not taken 
any such practice as to suggest a "laver," or "bath," 
or baptistery, or a bathing. The baptism idea did 
not run in that direction, but was made a figure 
of burial, (associated with resurrection), washing 
away of sin, and consecration. And the "bath," 
or "laver," word of Eph. 5 : 26 is so intensely 
figurative (as is the whole connection, from verse 



126 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

22 to verse 33), that we are again driven to 1 Peter 
3:21 for explanation of the figure, if Eph. 5:26 
does refer to the sinner; and there we find that the 
candidate for baptism has a good conscience; and 
that the act is not the literal washing away of sin 
(the filth of the flesh), but the good conscience' 
answer. The good conscience requires baptism; 
and he is already a good man, who is to be baptized. 

Then seek the meaning in the figure in Eph. 
5:26. 

The student should observe that, although 
Campbell speaks of "bath of water," and the 
American Version (in the margin) of a "laver of 
water," both versions studiously weaken the force 
of the next phrase, by rendering it, "with the 
word;" although the apostle wrote, "in word." 

That is how Christ, the husband, cleanses the 
church, the "bride. It is not the sinner that is 
cleansed by the bath of water in word (presumably 
the word of God) ; but the church, by constant, 
continuing teaching. The Jewish bride passed 
through ceremonial washings sometimes; and Paul 
suggests these things when speaking of the "congre- 
gation" (as Campbell calls it), or the "church" 
(as the American Version calls it). And Christ 
loved the church, his bride, and washed it in word, 
to sanctify it( see John 17: 17, 19) ; to remove its, 
or her, spots and wrinkles, that she might be wholly 
without blemish, or any such thing. 

It is the bride, the Lamb's wife, that is washed 
with the water of word, not some sinner. And she 
is washed that she might become glorious and 
beautiful. 



ephesians 5 : 26 127 

The cleansing spoken of is a continuing action 
(the participle in this connection permitting such 
meaning), to reach the result referred to in verse 
27: — "that it should be holy and without blemish." 

It is not sinners, or the several members of 
the church or congregation, that are meant ; but the 
totality of Christians, the whole, the one body, the 
bride. And it is the "word" that is the element 
of purification. 

And this interpretation, in spite of Campbell 
and commentators, is positively forced on us by 
Paul himself by his language in the connection, 
in verse 32 (the figure of husband and wife being 
steadily continued to that point), where he says, 
"I speak in regard of Christ and the church." 

Hence, it is the church that was washed, in the 
beautiful symbolism of Eph. 5 : 26 ; and the baptism 
of the ordinary sinner is not there referred to at all. 
And the church is loved by Christ, sanctified and 
cleansed, even to the time of the "marriage supper 
of the Lamb," in heaven above. (Rev. 19: 7; 21: 2; 
21:9, etc.). 

But there is an absurd element that would 
easily enter the discussion of Eph. 5 : 26-27, if a 
person insists that Paul there referred to baptism. 
For it was Christ that loved the church and washed 
it. If baptism be referred to, Christ must have 
substituted the wash-ers, for he himself "baptized 
not" (John 4:2) "but his disciples." But it is 
the same person that loved the church that washed 
it. It is hard to believe that Jesus loved the 
church by substitute. Christ is not the Bride- 
groom who would "love his wife by proxy." 



GALATIANS 3:27 

Gal. 3 : 27. "For as many of you as were baptized into 
Christ did put on Christ." 

Campbell translates as follows: — 

Gal. 3 : 27. "Besides, as many of you as have been 
immersed into Christ, have put on Christ." 

Here all the indications in favor of Campbell's 
position are found in the word into. As before 
shown, in treating Kom. 6 : 3-4, the most that can 
be claimed, the original word being as, is the force 
of unto: "As many of you as were baptized unto 
Christ." 

This is also evident from verse 24 of the con- 
nection, where the same word is used in the passage, 
"The law is become our tutor unto (ts) Christ." 
For the law was not our tutor into Christ. 

How intensely figurative the language Is 
appears from the latter part of it: — "Did put on 
Christ." It is a wonderful strain on the part of 
Campbell to make that clause mean, Had your sins 
remitted. 

For the same writer, Paul, uses the same 
figure in writing to people already Christians 
(Romans 13:14), saying to them, "But put ye on 
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for 
the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." This exhor- 
tation was to people already Christians, as is 
proved positively by these words addressed to them 
in the immediate connection (verse 11) : "For now 



GALATIANS 3 I 27 129 

is salvation nearer to us than when we first believed. 
The night is far spent, and the day is at hand." 

Also, the language, "as many of you as were 
baptized/' clearly reveals that Paul had the con- 
ception that some of them might not have been 
baptized; that is, some of the people of the 
"churches of Galatia" (Gal. 1:2) might not have 
been baptized. 

Therefore the language of Gal. 3 : 27 falls short 
of proving that the purpose of baptism is securing 
the remission of sins. 

But for a follower of Campbell to quote Gal. 
3 : 27 to prove his doctrine, is wrong in a stronger 
and more offensive sense : for the very preceding 
sentence of Paul declares how sinners are received : — 

Gal. 3 : 26. "For ye are all sons of God, through faith, 
in Christ Jesus." 

Mark: — "Ye are all sons of God through faith." 

Seeing that Campbell knew that Paul made 
that statement in the immediate connection of Gal. 
3 : 27, it was only the spirit of a usurper that would 
try to convince mankind that Paul meant to teach 
that it was through baptism that men became the 
sons of God. The usurper can administer bap- 
tism; which enables him to claim part of the royal 
privileges. And this concealment of Gal. 3 : 26, 
when quoting Gal. 3 : 27 is another illustration of 
the morally debauching influence of the doctrines 
of Alexander Campbell. 



I. CORINTHIANS 6:11 

Now we take up the last on our list of 
passages quoted to prove the main doctrine of 
Canipbellism, that the Bible commands immersion 
in water in order to the remission of sins. 

Alexander Campbell translates it as follows: — 

1 Cor. 6 : 11. "And such were some of you ; but you 
are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified, 
by the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
God.' , 

The American Version translates more accu- 
rately, and gives the true meaning of the Greek, 
as follows: — 

1 Cor. 6 : 11. "And such were some of you : but ye 
were washed (washed yourselves), but ye were sanctified, 
but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and in the Spirit of our God." 

The treasonable audacity of Campbell's doc- 
trine, that takes away from the heavenly agencies 
the justification of the sinner and gives it to man 
himself by the act of baptism will appear more 
shocking when I call attention to the fact that the 
marginal rendering of the American Version is the 
correct one: "washed yourselves:" for in the Greek 
that verb is what is called the middle voice. Does 
not the very strength of that utterance, "washed 
yourselves" show that the experience could not 
literally have taken place in the water of baptism, 
but must have been as Paul said, "in the name of 



I. CORINTHIANS Gill 131 

the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our 
God?" There is the washing, there is the sancti- 
fying, there is the justifying. It is all an honor to 
Christ, and is all spiritual. It is the "washing 
of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" 
(Titus 3:5) that Paul means, and not the act of 
water baptism. If it were that physical act in 
which a sinner "washed himself" literally, he might 
proudly strut before the Great White Throne, 
claiming the honor of having saved himself from 
his sins. But a sinner can only effectually wash 
himself, and be sanctified, and be justified, in the 
Spirit of our God, honoring the name of Christ. 

Thus this passage, 1 Cor. 6 : 11, harmonizes 
strictly with 1 Cor. 12 : 13 : "For in one Spirit were 
we all baptized into one body;" washed, sanctified, 
and justified, all in the name of the Lord Jesus, and 
in the Spirit of our God. 

The passage thus is not one that teaches remis- 
sion by works; but is in favor of spiritual religion, 
honoring God and the name of Christ. 



These are the passages quoted by the follower of 
Campbell to teach the doctrine of baptism in order 
to remission. A candid statement is that not one 
of them teaches it. Some of them even refute it. 

But no one can seriously claim that the 
doctrine is commanded by any legitimate authority, 
if it be not revealed in the Bible. 



PRACTICAL COMMENTS 

It is now evident that the "plan of salvation" 
inaugurated, or proclaimed, by Alexander Campbell 
is not God's plan. It is a plan devised by a dis- 
affected subject, desiring to put the theory of 
salvation in such a position that man may have a 
kind of physical demonstration that he is saved; 
so that the sinner may mentally stand before God 
and claim that he has filled the stated conditions, 
baptism being a kind of receipt, or certificate, safe- 
guarding the sinner; although the sinner and the 
preacher are the parties executing the document. 

But how this philosophy abolishes the spiritual 
touch between the sinful child and his heavenly 
Father! How the philosopher gets between man 
and God! How the preacher arouses the com- 
bative instinct in the sinner, and he is ready to 
argue everybody into hell that does not adopt the 
rebellious philosophy! How cruelly it consigns 
to perdition all human beings that are not 
immersed: all Roman Catholics, all Presbyterians, 
all Quakers, all the heathen, and all others who 
have not been immersed in order to the remission of 
sin. It is not enough to be immersed in order to 
obey God, to keep his commandments, to fulfill 
righteousness; the immersion must be in order to 
the remission of sins. 

Thus Campbellism rebels against the God of 
love; it extinguishes the warmth of the affection 



PRACTICAL COMMENTS 133 

between God and his repentant child, the spiritual 
flame, with the cold bath of water legal tender : the 
sinner is made to believe that salvation is not a 
matter of sweet forgiveness flowing from the divine 
heart to the clinging child, but a matter of contract ; 
diplomatic, commercial, "give and take." 

But God will not accept any plan that deprives 
him of sovereignty. He will pardon whom, when, 
where and how he pleases. He will not give the 
power to men, who are incapacitated by ignorance, 
absence, prejudice, or sinfulness. God did not 
make salvation more difficult under the gospel than 
under the law. 

How rebellious that system is, which places an 
immersing preacher between God and the sinner; 
that contradicts God's call, "Now is the accepted 
time," with the rebel cry, Not now; to-morrow I 
will immerse you, and your sins will be remitted! 



That I state the offensiveness of Campbell's 
commercial legalism very feebly, will appear plainly 
from the following words of Campbell himself in 
"The Christian Baptist :"— 

(Pages 446-447) "So reads the inventory of the Christian's 
estate. Among these 'all things,' we can easily find the for- 
giveness of our sins. This, then, becomes ours when we 
become Christ's ; and if we formally and actually become 
Christ's the moment we are immersed into his name, it 
is as clear as day that the moment a believer is immersed 
into the name of Christ, he obtains the forgiveness of his 
sins as actually and as formally as he puts him on in 
immersion. But as no woman is legally or in fact her 
husband's property, nor his property hers, until the mar- 
riage covenant is ratified and confirmed according to law; 
so no person can legally claim the blessings of pardon and 



134 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

acceptance who has not been according to law espoused to 
Jesus Christ. But so soon as the marriage is consum- 
mated, that moment the right is established and the 
blessings secured. And as nothing but a legal divorce 
can disannul the marriage covenant, so nothing but 
apostacy from Jesus Christ can alienate us from the rights 
and immunities guaranteed in immersion" (Christian 
Baptist). 

Thus Campbell comes between God and the 
sinner, proposing to the latter a guarantee of 
"rights and immunities." 

Immersion a "guarantee!" "Rights and immun- 
ities guaranteed in immersion !" Tn the inventory 
"of the Christian's estate/' in the "inventory" of 
his "rights and immunities" "we can easily find the 
forgiveness of our sins" "guaranteed in immer- 
sion !" 

How different was the idea of Jesus, when 
describing the Prodigal as casting himself on the 
mercy of his father! saying, "I am no more worthy 
to be called thy son!" * * * * Campbell has the 
sinner's immunities "guaranteed in immersion ;" 
and his "rights" to the "ring," and to the "best 
robe," and to the "shoes," and to the "fatted calf." 
Tn fact, if the Prodigal had only known Campbell's 
"novel" doctrine, he might have gone to a Camp- 
bellite preacher, and had all his rights and 
immunities as a son "guaranteed in immersion." 

And how different is the spirit of Campbell's 
sinner mercenarily strutting up to the heavenly 
Banker's counter, tendering the "guarantee" of the 
"forgiveness of his sins," from the spirit of the 
really repentant sinner expressed in the chorus of 
praise going up in thousands of congregations when 
they sing in worship, — 



PRACTICAL COMMENTS 135 

"Not the labor of my hands 
Can fulfill thy law's demands; 
Could my zeal no respite know, 
Could my tears forever flow, 
All for sin could not atone ; 
Thou must save, and thou alone. 
Nothing in my hand I bring; 
Simply to thy cross I cling." 

To such sinners Campbell cries, Your tears 
need not "forever flow;" I can give you a guarantee 
of forgiveness, in immersion. 

But is not this a logical depravity only possible 
to a theological rebel toward God, making God, 

when left alone, unable to forgive a sinner, 

although a poor, miserable sophist, a Campbellite 
preacher, can give a "guarantee?" 

Thus Campbell makes his King powerless to 
save without the aid of a preacher; powerless to 
save on a desert; powerless to save in the polar 
regions in winter; powerless to save on a sick bed; 
powerless to save on a mountain height; powerless 
to save on a battle-field. Thus he surrounds his 
King with the limitations of dogmatic constitution- 
alism, and reduces the heavenly Ruler to the 
prerogatives of a limited monarchy. This is 
rebellion. 

What had God done to Campbell that he should 
thus narrow and wither the rights of the heavenly 
Father? 



It is not only rebellion against the government 
of God, but it is rebellious as to his glory: for it 
makes out God to be a ridiculous Ruler, unable to 
deviate from a plan of salvation appropriately 
called "gospel in water." What sensible earthly 



136 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

king would be so whimsical? What ruler would 
remit taxes only to such subjects as could jump 
three feet high? What monarch would pardon a 
man out of the penitentiary if he would make some 
muscular motion? What emperor would give 
rebellious subjects sonship in his empire for some 
arbitrarily chosen physical action? 



I say arbitrarily chosen physical action : for 
baptism was arbitrarily chosen by Campbell. He 
might just as well have chosen that other ceremony, 
the communion; and made communion and remis- 
sion of sins to be "inseparably connected" (as he 
says of baptism and remission of sins). For on 
the very night Jesus established the communion, we 
find the following in the record: — 

Mat 26 : 27. "And he took a cup, and gave thanks, 
and gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is 
my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many 
unto remission of sins." 

This shows that Campbell might just as well 
have argued that a penitent's sins could not be 
forgiven until he had drunk the blood of Christ 
from the cup for "remission of sins;" or that 
celebrating the communion, in addition to baptism, 
was necessary to remission of sins; thus adding 
ceremony to ceremony, work to work, in order to 
receive remission of sins. 

But we all understand that the fruit of the 
vine in the cup was only a type of the blood, and 
the whole ceremony a symbol. So baptism and 
its "washing" should be understood. 



PRACTICAL COMMENTS 137 

This whole theory of Campbellism thrusts 
baptism outside of salvation; making it the ticket 
at the door. But why give this beautiful ordinance 
over to sinners. Why not allow Christians to be 
baptized? If baptism is to be given over to 
sinners, what will hinder the communion from next 
being lowered? The communion represents the death 
of Jesus ; baptism represents the burial. But death 
occurs before burial. Therefore, if baptism is to be 
surrendered to sinners, the communion should be : 
and both of these beautiful ordinances would be 
observed before the sinner could be saved. 

And this argument is founded on the sym- 
bolism of the Bible : for the communion is made the 
fulfillment of the Jewish passover feast, and 
baptism the fulfillment of the Jewish crossing of the 
Bed Sea. But the passover was eaten in Egypt, 
before the Jews started on their journey, and had 
not yet reached the Red Sea. 

But if we use Bible good sense we have no 
difficulty with these symbols : for the passover and 
the Red Sea baptism were both commanded by God 
to people who were already Hebrews, Israelites, 
Jews; and the commands were given to them 

precisely because they were Jews So it 

should be with baptism, as well as with the commun- 
ion. Both ordinances should be observed by people 
who are already Christians. 

But what an abuse of the right it is, to compel 
a convert just coming to Christ, before he can be 
forgiven of his sins, to decide on the mode of bap- 
tism and related questions. The mode of baptism, 



138 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

to be decided by him in a moment, by him unedu- 
cated in theological matters, when great doctors of 
divinity are learnedly differing on it. Just think 
of it: The convert must decide the question before 
his sins can be forgiven by God ! Paul teaches us 
that we should have charity. Why should not God 
have it for the repentant sinner, even though he may 
not understand the mode of baptism? If fallible 
men are to have charity for fallible men, why should 
not the Campbellite admit that God may have it? 

No; baptism belongs to God's people. Noah 
was chosen before entering the ark. Israel was 
God's people before eating the passover or crossing 
the Red Sea. The Hebrews were God's people 
before the baptism of John. On the day of 
Pentecost the convicted Jews said to the preaching 
apostles, "Brethren," before they were commanded 
to be baptized. 

Baptism was from heaven, although established 
by John. He came baptizing the Jews, religious 
people, the best people in the w^orld ; and he baptized 
Jesus himself. It was so approved by heaven that 
the Holy Spirit became visible, and a voice from 
the skies announced the pleasure of God in the act 
of his Son ; "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
well pleased." 

In that time there were none too bad to be 
baptized, if they repented of their sins; and there 
were none too good to be baptized, as is proved by 
the cases of Cornelius and Jesus. But in our time 
the scene changes, and Campbellites teach that 
sinners only should be baptized; thus turning this 
heavenly ceremony over to the sinful world. 



PRACTICAL COMMENTS 139 

The Campbellite cannot deny that some of his 
converts, though forgiven, may backslide. Some 
of these backsliders may be restored to Christian 
living. But I never heard that a Campbellite 
rebaptized such a person. If restored, then, it 
must be by some spiritual experience. But why 
does not the Campbellite rebaptize the returning 
penitent, if baptism, equally with repentance and 
faith, as Campbell claims, is necessary to remission 
of sins? Does backsliding make immersion 
unnecessary? Why is immersion useless after the 
first dipping? What sin of the backslider took 
away baptism's cleansing power? Why is it good 
for the remission of sins only once? Is it like a 
railroad ticket? Or does God consider a back- 
slider one whom he will more readily pardon than 
the sinner who has never been born again? If so, 
is not this the old Calvinism in a new form; a 
"perseverance of the saints?" 

And suppose the convert should backslide a 
second time. Since God waives baptism in the first 
restoration, would he waive some spiritual 
experience the next time? If so, what; repentance 
or faith? And if so, might not the Campbellite 
go on backsliding and returning and backsliding 
again, until he would have no duty or need, either 
to repent, or believe, or be baptized any more; but 
just go on sinning, and returning, and backsliding 
into heaven? 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 

Before we proceed to other Scripture wordings 
plainly refuting Campbellism, I refer systematically 
to Bible examples and incidents, only a part of 
which I have mentioned; incidents and examples of 
forgiveness prior to, or independent of, baptism. 
In this discussion I repel Campbell's theory that the 
books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John can give 
us no help on the doctrine of the remission of sins : 
for that theory (that of the setting up of the king- 
dom on Pentecost) is thoroughly untrue in its 
nature, and contrary to the Bible, as I have already 
proved, and shall prove again. 



Noah. When treating the Campbellite inter- 
pretation of 1 Peter 3 : 21, I called attention to the 
fact that Noah was a righteous man before the 
flood; and that it was because he was a righteous 
man that he received that baptism, or the baptism 
there spoken of. He had God's favor before he 
was baptized. 



Bed Sea Baptism. The Israelites, when com- 
ing out of Egypt (1 Cor. 10:1-2), "were all under 
the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and 
were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
the sea." But it was because they 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 141 

already had the favor of God that they were so 
baptized. That is, they were Israelites before that 
baptism. They had even eaten the passover, the 
type of our Christian communion, before they were 
baptized. Even before that, God had said to 
Pharaoh (Ex. 4:22), "Israel is my son, my first- 
born." Just so, Jesus was the Son of 

God before he was baptized, as I have already 
pointed out. 



I insist that genuine Christian baptism, the 
baptism of the Bible, the baptism commanded by 
God, was offered to believers, to God's own church, 
to God's own people. 

The Jews, to whom John the Baptist preached, 
were God's people: for John, the evangelist, wrote 
of them (John 1: 11), "He came unto his own, and 
they that were his own received him not." This 
proves that they were God's people, whom John was 
baptizing, confessing their sins; while others of 
them received him not. 

And on the day of Pentecost, the people whom 
Peter commanded to be baptized were members of 
the church of God, called by inspiration (Acts 
2:5), "Jews, devout men, from every nation under 
heaven." Peter called them (Acts 2:29), "breth- 
ren." And when they were convicted of their sin 
in having opposed Jesus, and were (Acts 2:37) 
"pricked in their heart," they still felt that they 
were of the same brotherhood as Peter; saying to 
him and the other 120 preachers of the day, 
"Brethren, what shall we do?" 



142 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

The Eunuch (Acts 8:27-39), whom Philip 
baptized, was a pious servant of the true God, who 
had come all the way from Ethiopia "to Jerusalem 
to worship," and when Philip first met him was 
"reading Isaiah the prophet." . He was evidently a 
lover of God prior to his baptism. 



Pedo-Baptists. Jesus, the only begotten Son 
of God, when he was crucified, prayed to God 
(Luke 23: 34), "Father, forgive them, for they know 

not what they do." If Jesus could 

pray that unbaptized sinners, who were cruelly 
driving nails through his hands and feet, might be 
forgiven because of their ignorance, surely he would 
wish for pedo-baptists to be forgiven, who lovinglj 
try to serve him, but (on the Campbellite theory) 
are mistaken concerning the true mode of baptism. 
If the ignorance of Christ's enemies could be 
pleaded in their behalf, surely the ignorance of his 
friends could be. And we are certain that Jesus 
did not pray for a pardon that he knew God could 
not grant according to his "plan of salvation." 



There was the Man Sick of the Palsy, "borne 
of four" (Mark 2:3), whom his bearers let down 
through the roof unto the presence of Jesus. The 
point of the incident is contained in the following 
part of the record, no allusion having been made to 
baptism : — 

Mark 2 : 5. "And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto 
the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven." 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 1.43 

There was the Publican of the parable, who 
went up to the temple to pray at the same time 
with the Pharisee; the Pharisee being a theologian 
of a kind of Campbellite doctrine, who trusted in 
his many works, fasting, tithes, etc., though he did 
not mention baptism. All that the publican could 
do, however, was to smite on his breast (Luke 
18:13), and say, "God, be thou merciful to me a 
sinner." But Jesus' words about this unbaptized 
publican were, — 

"I say unto you, This man went down to his house 
justified rather than the other" (Luke 18:14). 



There was Cornelius the Centurion, to whom 
an angel of the Lord had given commandment to 
send for Peter, who "should speak unto him words 
whereby Tie should be saved" (Acts 11:14). And 
Cornelius obeyed the angel and sent for Peter, and 
said to him (Acts 10:33), "Now therefore we are 
all here present in the sight of God, to hear all 
things that have been commanded thee of the 
Lord." What an exhortation, incentive and 
encouragement that would have been to Peter to 
preach Campbellism, if he had believed it! But 
Peter preached Christianity to him, not mentioning 
any baptism at all, except John's baptism, and 
mentioning that only by way of fixing a date. The 
whole discourse of Peter (as far as recorded) has 
not a word suggesting any Campbellite dogma. 
And though Peter did speak of "the remission of 
sins," it was in such connection as to refute Camp- 



144 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

bellism: for Peter opened and closed the sermon 
with these words: 

Acts 10 : 34-43. "Of a truth I perceive that God is no 
respecter of persons; but in every nation he that 
feareth him and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to 
him. The word which he sent unto the children of Israel, 
preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ," etc. 

"To him bear all the prophets witness, that 

through his name every one that believeth on him shall 
receive remission of sins." 

How that annihilates Canipbellism ! "Every 
one that believeth on him shall receive remission of 
sins!" And this preacher was Peter, whom Camp- 
bell represents as having announced at Pentecost 
that being immersed was the condition on which 
remission of sins would be granted; and whom 
Cornelius was to send for, to hear of him words 
whereby he should be "saved." And yet in the 
whole discourse not a word about Christian 
baptism ! ! ! 

And the succeeding events of the day made this 
matter still more emphatic, if possible, showing by 
what happened (as well as by what was said) that 
Campbellism could not be true. For (Acts 10: 44) 
"While Peter yet spake these words the Holy Spirit 
fell on all them that heard the word." Observe, 
no one had yet been baptized ; and yet Campbell, 
1900 years later, had the rebellious disposition to 
try to deprive God of the prerogative of bestowing 
the Holy Spirit to any except the immersed. 

But God's mighty power was not shortened, 
nor his loving grace narrowed, by Campbellite 
theories; and the Holy Spirit was even "poured 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 145 

out" (Acts 10:45) on the unbaptized Gentiles in 
the house of Cornelius, there in Caesarea. 

And the sweet Christian meeting went on; and 
Peter's hearers who had accepted the truth of what 
Peter had preached, believing it, testified, speaking 
with tongues, Magnifying God." At last that 
genuine gospel preacher, Peter, without doubt still 
under Christian influence, exclaimed, — 

"Can any man forbid the water, that these should not 
be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as 
we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name 
of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:47). 

It cannot reasonably be contended that, when 
Peter commanded Cornelius to be baptized, he was 
not already a saved man: for he had received the 
Holy Spirit, had been "speaking with tongues," 
and had been "magnifying God." It was evidently 
because he was a saved man that Peter commanded 

him to be baptized And the "words" of 

Peter, alluded to by him in Acts 11:14 ("whereby 
thou shalt be saved") must have been those used by 
him in his main discourse in Acts 10 : 34-43, in 
which he did not mention any baptism but John's, 
closing the sermon with the promise concerning 
Jesus, "Through his name every one that believeth 
on him shall receive remission of sins." 

And yet I would not for a moment deny that 
for Cornelius, or any other Christian, the word 
salvation may refer to various blessings; the remis- 
sion of past sins in the present life, or the reward 
of continuing faithfulness: for "He that endureth 
to the end, the same shall be saved" (Mat. 10: 22). 



146 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Take an instance of the preaching of the gospel 
by another apostle, where a long account is given; 
that of Paul, at Antioch of Pisidia. It was long 
after the day of Pentecost, when Campbell admits 
that the laws of the kingdom were in full force; 
God having but "one plan of salvation." 

Paul was preaching in the synagogue (Acts 
13:16-41), and spoke at length, seeming to have 
occupied the whole time to the close of the services ; 
so that when the congregation was dispersing the 
people asked him to speak to them again on the 
next sabbath. The record of his sermon we have 
from the pen of his friend, Luke, the evangelist, who 
was a good writer, who also understood Chris- 
tianity and understood Paul well, and was in full 
sympathy with him, and therefore would not 
misrepresent him. Paul's discourse that day was 
the first announcement of the gospel to that people, 
in Antioch of Pisidia. Therefore it would be 
natural to suppose that he would reveal the 
doctrine of the remission of sins. That supposition 
is correct; and Paul did reveal it. But in the 
whole discourse he said nothing about baptism, 
except John's baptism; not a word about what 
Campbell considers Christian baptism, nor any 

hint of it, or allusion to it It is 

difficult to believe that any missionary believing as 
Campbell taught would introduce the gospel into a 
new city, without referring to Christian baptism. 

But when Paul, the apostle, revealed to 

those people of Pisidia the doctrine of the remission 
of sins, he stated principles that absolutely overthrow 
Campbellism, using the following words: — 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 147 

Acts 13 : 38-39. "Be it known unto you therefore, 
brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you 
remission of sins : and by him every one that believeth is 
justified from all things." 

Thus Paul, when preaching the remission of 
sins, does not even mention baptism, but makes it 
depend exclusively on faith; an experience (if 
genuine) that all followers of Jesus admit precedes 
baptism. And as faith precedes baptism, and as 
Paul teaches that "every one that believeth is justi- 
fied from all things," it is ineontestably proved by 
the word of Paul that all who are pardoned are 
pardoned before baptism. Paul was a man who 
gave his life for true Christianity, not to build up 
a sect; and knew far more about the forgiveness of 
sins than Alexander Campbell. 

And this is not all there is to be said about the 
preaching at Antioch of Pisidia : for it was success- 
ful; and Luke says, — 

"And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and 
glorified the word of God : and as many as were ordained 
to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). 

These believers seem to have regarded the 
preaching of Paul as the "word of God," and 
"glorified" it, and "believed;" and still there is no 
mention of baptism. Whether they were baptized 
or not, the emphasis was on faith. Without doubt 
it was faith that caused them to receive the blessing 
of God, in being "filled with joy and with the Holy 
Spirit," as w 7 e read in the 52d verse. 

Our interpretation is correct: for when Paul 
and Barnabas returned to Antioch in Syria, from 
whence they had started on that missionary 



148 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

journey, they gave a report of their preaching and 
conduct; and events happened recorded in the 
following words: — 

Acts 14 : 26-27. "They sailed to Antioch, from whence 
they had been committed to the grace of God for the work 
which they had fulfilled. And when they were come, 
and had gathered the church together, they rehearsed all 
things that God had done with them, and that he had 
opened a door of faith unto the Gentiles.' , 

It is not the door of baptism, nor anything that 
sounds like it; but the door of faith. And so it 
is all the time in loyal Christianity. 

However, there were people in ancient times, 
of the same disposition as Alexander Campbell in 
modern times, demanding some physical action, or 
some material demonstration, in securing remission 
of sins: for we read the following, in the very con- 
nection of the history we have been relating: — 

Acts 15:1. "And certain men came down from Judea 
and taught the brethren, saying, Except ye be circumcised 
after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved.''* 

This caused excitement and strife (which such 
teaching often arouses), so that the apostles and 
elders at Jerusalem assembled in council on the 
subject; but there does not seem to have been 
among them a single person of Campbell's mode of 
thought, to call attention to the necessity of 
baptism in securing the remission of sins: for the 
following is the record of the meeting: — 

Acts 15 : 6 seq. "And the apostles and the elders were 
gathered together to consider of this matter. And when 
there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said 
unto them, 

•'Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made 
choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 149 

hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, who 
knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the 
Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us; and he made no 
distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by 
faith." 

There it is again: "cleansing their hearts by 
faith" Why did he not say something about bap- 
tism, as a help in cleansing? But he went on, — 

"Xow therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye 
should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which 
neither our fathers or we were able to bear? But we 
believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the 
Lord Jesus, in like manner as they" (Acts 15:10-11). 

In all that congregation at Jerusalem there 
was not a single person to teach Campbellism. Not 
one among them mentioned baptism as necessary 
to forgiveness, and not one among them even 
suggested it as a substitute for circumcision. If 
Campbell had been there he would have challenged 
Peter, Paul and James to a public discussion on 

the subject But Peter plainly taught 

the doctrine he had so plainly taught in the house 
of Cornelius, where he first preached the gospel to 
Gentiles. 



Now let us turn back again, and take cases 
where Jesus himself was present; the King of 
glory; the one w T ho knew more about remission of 
sins than either Peter or Paul; the one whom it 
cost his life; who died that sinners might be 
forgiven, through faith in him. For, notwith- 
standing all theories that try to get us away from 
him, he was the "author and perfecter of our 
faith;" and we are safe in trusting his spirit, his 



150 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

word and his example: for he commanded us to 
learn of hini, claiming to be our Lord and Teacher. 
He never said that we should turn from him to 
Peter for instruction. Let us seek the presence of 
the King, and bow our heads in submission to his 
spirit and word. 

Sermon on the Mount. One of the longest 
records of Jesus' preaching is in Matthew, covering 
three chapters: 5th, 6th and 7th. It is commonly 
called the Sermon on the Mount. In that dis- 
course he made the most extreme claims for high 
conduct, even commanding perfection. He closed 
the sermon with the terrific warning, "Whosoever 
heareth these sayings of mine and doeth them shall 
be likened to a wise man that built his house on the 

rock ; and whosoever heareth these sayings 

of mine and doeth them not shall be likened to a 
foolish man that built his house on the sand." 
. . . . This warning w^as spoken with authority, 
so that his hearers felt it; and it was so recorded. 
And the three chapters are most exacting in their 
requirements of a clean life, spiritual character, 
and perfect conduct. The discourse contains the 
Golden Rule, the Lord's Prayer, and the beatitudes. 
It reveals how to see God and how to be "filled" 
with righteousness. And yet Jesus, in the whole 
sermon, never said, Blessed are the baptized in 
order to remission, nor anything that sounded like 
it. In fact, he did not mention baptism, nor refer 
to it even indirectly; although he knew of baptism. 
He did not mention baptism among all the com- 
mandments of that comprehensive sermon; and yet 
he described the man who heard its sayings and 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 151 

obeyed them, as a wise man, surviving all storms 
and tempests. 



Notice Christ's personal treatment of sinners. 

There was the Sinful Woman, to whom we 
have already referred, the "woman who was in the 
city, a sinner" (Luke 7:37), but now deeply 
repentant, who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, 
and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Jesus 
argued with the Pharisees about her, though neither 
the Pharisees nor any one else said anything about 
baptism, and finally turned to the woman with the 
blessed words, "Thy sins are forgiven" (Luke 
7:48). 



There was the Dying Thief, whom Jesus 
blessed without baptism (Luke 23:39-48). There 
are some points in that case not commonly 
noticed : — 

You remember that there were three that day 
hanging on crosses at Jerusalem. In the presence 
of Jesus, while rebuking the other highway robber, 
the penitent one confessed his own sins and justi- 
fied Jesus. Then, turning to the King, he said, 
"Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy 
kingdom." 

I once wondered for a moment if the thief was 
infected with Campbellism; possibly supposing that 
Jesus was at some later time to enter into his 
kingdom. If so, Jesus quickly corrected him, and 



152 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

announced to him a present salvation, by the ever 
blessed words, "Verily I say unto thee, To-day shalt 
thou be with me in Paradise." 

Here was a man evidently saved, and saved 
without immersion. And the thief had been 
talking about the kingdom, "thy kingdom." If it 
be true that in the kingdom of heaven people cannot 
have remission without immersion, there was the 
very time for Jesus to have made it plain. And if 
the kingdom was not to be set up for weeks, not 
until the day of Pentecost, Jesus should have said 
to the dying thief, I will not come into my kingdom 
till the day of Pentecost, and I will remember thee 
then. After that time it will be necessary for 
sinners to be immersed in order to remission; and 
thou art especially lucky in having been captured 
by the Romans, tried and convicted before 
Pentecost: for if thou hadst been crucified and 
become penitent after Pentecost, thou couldst not 
have been forgiven without immersion; and it 
would probably have been very difficult to have 
persuaded the Romans to have thee taken down 
from the cross to be immersed. After Pentecost, 
dying thieves shall not be saved without immersion. 

But Jesus did not teach Campbellism. He 
said to the unimmersed penitent, "To-day shalt 
thou be with me in Paradise." 

And now observe the spirit of this saved man; 
a man unquestionably saved. It is certain from 
that spirit that he was not infected with Campbell- 
ism. For he does not announce to Jesus his 
acceptance of any dogma. First, he confesses his 
sins. Second, he defends Jesus; which indicates 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 153 

his faith in him. Third, he makes humble prayer 
to his Lord; not having heard of Campbell's 
doctrine that prayer is not for the unimmersed. 
I said humble prayer. He asked not for deliver- 
ance from death. Indeed, he confesses that he 
receives the "due reward of his deeds." He asks 
not for the abolishing of the terrible torture. He 
asks not even that it may be lessened, or relieved. 
He does not even pray like a Campbellite sinner: — 
"for the remission of sin;" but only to be "remem- 
bered." 

And this miserable sinner, a malefactor, high- 
way robber, but now humble, penitent, believing in 
Jesus, is not baptized, does not even ask for pardon, 
or for remission ; but only to be remembered. And 
the tremendous, loving heart of Jesus leaps with 
joy toward the faith and worship of the dying thief, 
and crowns him with salvation : "To-day shalt thou 
be with me in Paradise." 



There was the Prodigal Son of the parable, 
who finally "came to himself" (Luke 15:17), 
repented of his sins and said, "I will arise and go 
to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I 
have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am 
no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as 
one of thy hired servants." .... There is no 
record or hint of any baptism, and there was none, 
unless it was the "bath of regeneration" (being born 
again to his father, which the young man went 
through "when he came to himself"). It is certain 
that there was no literal baptismal flood to be 



154 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

crossed by the weak, ragged, starving sinner, before 
the father would forgive him. It was enough for 
the true father, that the sinner's heart was changed. 
And he did not wait in lofty parental dignity for 
his son to wash away "the filth of the flesh," nor to 
put off his ragged garments and put on righteous- 
ness: for the father himself attended to all that, 
and did not even allow his boy fully to finish the 
speech of confession that he had planned to offer his 
father. And Jesus' account of the young man's 
return is the following: — 

Luke 15 : 20-24. "And he arose, and came to his father. 
But while he was yet afar off, his father saw him, and 
was moved with compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, 
and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I 
have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight: I am no 
more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said 
to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it 
on him ; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet : 
and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and 
make merry : for this my son was dead, and is alive again ; 
he was lost, and is found." 

All know that Jesus intended the father of 
the parable to be a type of the heavenly Father in 
forgiving his penitent child. And this pictured 
readiness of God to forgive us is becoming to him: 
for his Son, Jesus, gave us commandment as 
follows : — 

Luke 17 : 3. "If thy brother sin, rebuke him ; and if 
he repent, forgive him." 

If we are to forgive our brethren on repentance, 
it is equally becoming to God to forgive his children 
when they repent. In fact, Paul, long after the 
day of Pentecost, made this parallelism fully as 
strong as I do, saying: — 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 155 

Eph. 4 : 32. "Be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, 
forgiving each other, even as God also in Christ forgave 
you." 

Probably no Christian would insist that his 
brother should be baptized before he would forgive 
him, or that Paul meant that. And yet we are to 
forgive, even as God forgave us. 

All the examples of forgiveness without water 
baptism must be considered severally, each one, as 
sufficient proof that baptism is not "in order to" 
remission, nor "in order to obtain remission," when 
we observe that there is no instance mentioned in 
the Bible where there is any promise to baptism 
alone. This is not so with repentance, or faith. 



Apostles. Among proofs by example, attention 
may be called to the fact that there is no hint in the 
Bible that the very apostles of the Lord had ever 
received anything more than John's baptism. Who 
can prove that they had all received even that? 

But if they had believed Campbellism, on the 
day of Pentecost, when Campbell claims the king- 
dom was set up, and a new dispensation ushered in, 
they would have baptized each other in order to the 
remission of their own sins; and it is probable that 
there would have been such record: for in the case 
of far less important personages (Acts 19:1-7) the 
history is clear of a re-baptism of some of John's 
converts, or men who claimed to be John's converts, 
though not correctly knowing John's doctrine. If 
those men were re-baptized, on account of failure to 
gather the truth in their first instruction, no charge 



156 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

being brought against their character, possibly the 
twelve apostles would have been re-baptized at Pen- 
tecost, their previous baptism, before (Campbell's) 
birth baptism was inaugurated, having been ineffec- 
tual as to the remission of their sins. How would 
they dare baptize other people, while knowing that 
their own sins had not been remitted? 

That my reasoning as to the apostles themselves 
is sound from the Campbellite standpoint, will 
appear plainly from the following language of 
Campbell, where, after arguing falsely that Jesus' 
reign did not begin till he had ascended 1o heaven, 
he falsely goes on to show that the apostles them- 
selves were not born again till the day of 
Pentecost : — 

"No man could enter into the kingdom of God until 
it was revealed, or come under the reign of God until 
this reign commenced. And it has been already proved 
that this reign did not commence till the Messiah was 
crowned Lord of all. Hence the Holy Spirit was not 
given till Christ was glorified, and until his reign com- 
menced. The commencement of this reign is called the 
regeneration, and therefore the apostles were not them- 
selves regenerated in the sense of the Lord's discourse 
with Nicodemus, until the period called the regeneration 
came. The Savior declared to Nicodemus that except a 
man were born again he could not see the reign of God. 
A man that was regenerated would, then, see or understand 
this reign. But none of Christ's disciples saw or under- 
stood this reign till Christ was glorified ; for, before his 
ascension, they asked a question concerning his reign, 
which showed that they did not understand it; conse- 
quently, had not yet been born in the sense of John 3 : 3" 
(Christian Baptist, p. 117). 

Thus Campbell agonizes not only to keep Christ 
out of his kingdom, but the apostles out of it. . . 
. . But why, if Campbell's fallacy is true, is there 
no record that the apostles w T ere rebaptized? seeing 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 157 

that he argues that they were not born again till 
the day of Pentecost? Campbell does not explain 
this weak point in his reasoning, although he knew 
that the same writer who related the Pentecost 
history told about the re-baptism of John's disciples 

at Ephesus According to Campbell, 

even if Jesus himself had baptized his disciples 
while he was on earth, it would not have availed 
anything, for it would have been under the Jewish 
dispensation, and before the "reign of heaven" 
began, or the kingdom of God was set up. Let me 
further emphasize this point: — 

There is no Bible proof that even the "twelve 
apostles" themselves had ever been baptized. And 
Campbell goes so far as to argue, even in public 
debate, that they could not have received Christian 
baptism; using the following language: — 

"There must be some one to commence Christian 
baptism; that could not be done till Jesus had died, was 
buried, and rose again : because Christians are said to be 
baptized into his death, they are said to be buried with 
him, and to rise with him. This could not be the case 
till Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. Christian 
baptism could not be anticipated. Its facts must first 
transpire. They began to immerse into Christ on the 
day of Pentecost" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 356). 

Thus Campbell argues that the apostles had not 

received Christian baptism Had not 

their sins been forgiven? 

In the apostolic age baptism was general; but 
it was not in order to remission of sins. It was to 
obey God, typifying Christian experiences; but not 
to secure them. 



15S CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

The Philippian Jailer. Take another incident 
in the conduct of Paul: — 

In the prison at Philippi, the jailer was con- 
victed and asked the question, "What must I do to 
be saved ?" 

It is the only time that question is recorded in 
the Bible. That was not the question asked on the 
day of Pentecost. But when the jailer at Philippi 
asked it, "What must I do to be saved?" the answer 
given promptly by Paul is in perfect harmony with 
the doctrine and practice of Jesus, in harmony with 
the teaching of Peter, and in harmony with his own ; 
the following being the record: — 

Acts 16 : 29-34. "And he called for lights and sprang 
in, and, trembling for fear, fell down before Paul and Silas, 
and brought them out and said, Sirs, what must I do to 
be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and 
thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house. And they spake 
the word of the Lord unto him, with all that were in his 
house. And he took them the same hour of the night, 
and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all 
his, immediately. And he brought them up into his house, 
and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his 
house, having believed in God." 

It is true that he was baptized; but Paul did 
not tell him that he must be baptized, when he asked 
the question, "What must I do to be saved?" 

That question is the question with which Camp- 
bellism in modern times professes to deal : What 
must we do to be saved; to be saved from sin; or, 
in order to the remission of sin? What must I do 
to be saved? 

To that, Paul and Silas both answered, "Believe 
on the Lord Jesus." And how vividly that reply 
to the scared and trembling jailer suggests Jesus' 
own words, "Fear not, only believe." 



BIBLE EXAMPLES REFUTING CAMPBELLISM 159 

The jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?" 
Paul and Silas both replied, "Believe on the Lord 
Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and thy house." 
They then continued and preached to him. 

The jailer believed. 

His immediate conduct shows that he was a 
changed man, a saved man. He began to minister 
to Paul and Silas. He took them somewhere and 
attended to their lacerated backs, which he had 
neglected when he thrust them into the inner prison 
and made their feet fast in the stocks. He took 
them to a place of water. "He took them the same 
hour of the night, and washed their stripes." He 
apparently had lost his terror and trembling. His 
object now is to serve. With tenderness he soothes 
the wounded backs of Paul and Silas; he cleanses 
the cuts; he washes away the clogged blood, and 
ministers to them as a Christian should. Thus he 

begins Christian working But these 

missionaries may be called away; his opportunities 
for service to them or by them may soon be denied 
him: for they are really prisoners. And yet he 
has taken them to the place of water ; and therefore, 
in harmony with the instructions they had possibly 
given him, or he had previously gathered from their 
preaching, or from public rumor, he is baptized. 

I have no question that the same motive 
animated him as influenced the eunuch, who asked 
Philip, "See, here is water; wiiat doth hinder me to 
be baptized?" Philip only hesitated long enough 
to find if the faith of the eunuch was right. 

But the point that bears on the great issue that 
we are considering is the reply to the question, 



160 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"What must I do to be saved?" .... That 
reply was, "Believe." 

In order that you may understand the solemn 
fulness of this reply of Paul and Silas to the 
Philippian jailer, how Paul claimed that in another 
place he had not shrunk from declaring everything 
that was of importance, I quote his words recorded 
in his farewell address at Ephesus: — 

Acts 20 : 20-27. "I shrank not from declaring unto 

you anything that was profitable testifying 

both to Jews and Greeks repentance toward God, and faith 

toward our Lord Jesus Christ Wherefore I 

testify unto you this day, that I am pure from the blood 
of all men. For I shrank not from declaring unto you 
the whole counsel of God." 

There is no one who will assert, in view of this 
declaration of Paul at Ephesus, that he kept any- 
thing back from the Philippian jailer; and yet, when 
that poor trembling man asked, "What must I do 
to be saved." Paul answered, "Believe on the Lord 
Jesus, and thou shalt be saved." 

No; the doctrine of salvation is one. The 
preaching of Paul, Peter and Jesus is one in its 
spirit. And it is the condition of the returning 
sinner's heart that God values, rather than some 
outward action : it is "repentance toward God, and 
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." 



BIBLE TEACHING DIRECTLY REFUTES 
CAMPBELLISM 

Acts 10 : 15. "What God hath cleansed make not thou 
common." 

John 11 : 25-26. "He that believeth on me, though he 
die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth 
on me shall never die." 

John 1 : 12-13. "As many as received him, to them gave 
he the right to become children of God, even to them that 
believe on his name; who were born, not of blood, nor 
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 

1 Peter 1 : 7-9. "Jesus Christ : whom not having seen ye 
love; on whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, 
ye rejoice greatly with joy unspeakable and full of glory : 
receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your 
souls." 

There is one book of the Bible, John, that was 

written in order that men might have life. It was 

written long after the day of Pentecost ; some critics 

even claiming that it was written late in the first 

century. The book repeatedly mentions baptism. 

It refers both to Jesus and to John as baptizing. 

But in the whole hook remission and baptism are 

never once coupled; or as Campbell would say, 

"inseparably connected." And the force of this 

statement will be better understood when I quote 

the w r ords of John declaring his reason for writing 

the book: — 

John 20 : 30-31. "Many other signs therefore did Jesus 
in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in 
this book: but these are written, that ye may believe that 
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye 
may have life in his name." 

If John's book was written that men might have 
life, why did he not say something about the "gospel 



162 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

in the water/' or baptism in order to remission, if 
tie believed such a thing? The answer is easy: He 
did not believe such a thing. John's emphasis, 
like that of Paul is on faith : on the heart experience ; 
not on an outward action. 



Take now the argument based on PAUL'S 
COMMISSION:— 

It is one of the most beautiful and inclusive 
charges recorded in the Bible. That Paul himself 
realized the greatness of it is evident from his own 
language, as follows: — 

Gal. 1 : 11-12. "For I make known unto you, brethren, 
as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it 
is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, 
nor was I taught it, but through revelation of Jesus 
Christ." 

In order to grasp Paul's commission in its ful- 
ness, read it slowly, and ponder it clause by clause. 
Campbell never had any such commission from any 
source, either when he was a Presbyterian, or 
Seceder, or Baptist, or Disciple. And it would 
have been far better for the w^orld, if Campbell had 
studied Paul's commission and avoided the errors 
into which he fell. Paul's commission reads as 
follows : — 

Acts 26:16-18. "But arise, and stand upon thy feet: 
for to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee 
a minister and a witness both of the things wherein thou 
hast seen me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto 
thee ; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, 
unto whom I send thee, to open their eyes, that they may 
turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan 
unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 163 

inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in 
me." 

That commission proves that Jesus did not 
believe Campbellism : for he teaches that the Gentiles 
are to receive remission by faith. And this har- 
monizes with Paul's statement about it in another 
place where he uses the following words: — 

''For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the 
gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17). 

You observe that Paul was not sent to baptize ; 
but he was sent to turn men "from darkness to light 
and from the power of Satan unto God, that they 
might receive remission of sins." 

But that would be impossible, if baptism is in 
order to remission of sins. 

By reading Paul's commission again, you will 
see that Paul told the Corinthians the truth about 
his commission : for baptism is not mentioned once 
in it, although remission of sins is mentioned, and 
also inheritance among the sanctified. 

It is evident that Paul's commission refutes 
Campbellism. And next to Jesus he was the most 
useful and successful preacher of the gospel. Thus 
Campbell rebels not only against Jesus, but against 
another apostle of Jesus. 

Paul plainly told the Galatians, who were 
Gentiles, how they were to be justified, and be the 
children of God: — 

Gal. 3 : 6-8, 28. "Even as Abraham believed God, and 
it was reckoned unto him for righteousness. Know there- 
fore that they that are of faith, the same are sons of 
Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel before- 
hand unto Abraham, (saying) In thee shall all the nations 



164 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

be blessed There can be neither Jew nor Greek, 

there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male 
and female; for ye all are all one (man) in Christ Jesus." 

And this doctrine of remission by faith Paul 
teaches elsewhere with emphatic simplicity, in the 
only chapter in all the epistles giving a detailed 
description of conversion; one of the most direct 
passages of the chapter being the following : — 

Romans 10 : 8-11. "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, 
and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we 
preach : because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus 
as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that God raised 
him from the dead, thou shalt be saved : for with the heart 
man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth 
confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture 
saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be put to 
shame. ,, 

There it is again: salvation by an experience 
of the heart, and not by an outward action. And 
Paul states that fully as emphatically as T do: for 
he uses the following words : — 

Rom. 3 : 28. "We reckon therefore that a man is 
justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or 
is God the God of the Jews only? is he not the God of the 
Gentiles also? Yes, of the Gentiles also : if so be that God 
is one, and he shall justify the circumcision by faith, and 
the uncircumcision through faith. ,, 



The emphasis of Paul is on the heart, the 
affections; not on any outward action, as securing 
forgiveness. And this agrees with the doctrine of 
that other apostle, Peter, as to the effectiveness of 
a true spiritual experience: — 

Acts 11 : 18. "Then to the Gentiles also hath God 
granted repentance unto life." 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 165 

The prodigal repenting, is seen by the Father 
while he is yet a great way off, and is forgiven. He 
may be in a "far country/' but the salvation is near, 
as the apostle said: — 

Romans 10 : 8. "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, 
and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we 
preach." 

It is plain that the Bible writers neglected to 
teach what Campbell calls the "gospel in water." 
It was not necessary for the prodigal to say (Rom. 

10:6-8), "Who shall ascend into heaven? 

or, Who shall descend into the deep?" For the 
word of faith is not "gospel in water." 

In the rise of the Baptist churches in north 
Germany the candidates sometimes had to wait 
months for baptism: for immersion was contrary to 
the law of the land; and the police were on the 
watch to prevent the crime. One minister crossed 
over into England to be immersed; reminding us of 
God's word about his commandment and salva- 
tion : — 

Dent. 31 : 11-14. "For this commandment which I 
command thee this day, is not too hard for thee, neither 

is it far off Neither is it beyond the sea 

But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in 
thy heart. " 

Paul refers to this, in describing our salvation, 
in his words in Bomans 10 : 8, quoted above. 



Even Peter, whose first sermon, on account of 
its containing Acts 2 : 38, is so much quoted, did not 
mention baptism in his second sermon, nor in his 



166 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

third, as I have shown; and in one of his epistles 
he did not mention it. If Campbellism had been 
true, the whole New Testament would have been 
liquid with baptism statements, with Campbell's 
"gospel in water." 

In that connection a Campbellite would be 
astonished to be informed that baptism is mentioned 
in a less number of books of the New Testament 
than mention it. It is mentioned in twelve books. 
In fifteen books it is not mentioned. James did not 
mention it. Jude did not mention it. In eight 
of Paul's books he did not mention it. 

Why did the Bible writers fail in that way, if 
they believed that men were to be immersed in order 
to remission of sins? 

Still further: — No book of the New Testament 
was written till long after Peter's sermon was 
delivered on the day of Pentecost (the sermon men- 
tioning baptism). For many years there was no 
report of that sermon for sinners to read. Before 
there was any known record of it, he delivered to 
non-Christians other sermons not mentioning bap- 
tism. If he had believed Campbellism, he ought to 
have taught the doctrine in every sermon, until the 
time when the baptism sermon would be accessible 
by the circulation of the book of Acts. And until 
that book was written, it would have been necessary 
for every preacher to teach baptism in every sermon, 
when preaching to the unsaved. Therefore, the fact 
that Peter omitted the mention of baptism in his 
second and third sermons shows that he did not 
believe Campbellism. 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 167 

But all the preachers taught the work of grace 
in the heart, following the spirit of the teaching of 
Jesus, that there "is joy in heaven over one sinner 
that repenteth" (Luke 15:7). 

Still further:— 

In all the New Testament after the book of 
Acts, that is, beginning with Eomans and ending 
with Eevelation, there is not a single command to 
be baptized. 

Still further:— 

In studying the book of Acts, I find at least 
twenty-one references to conversion. Baptism is 
mentioned in connection with probably only eight 
cases. But if there was baptism in the others, as 
is probable, the fact that the historian did not 
mention it, shows that he did not consider it the 
most important experience. 



Justification by works (such as burning candles, 
philanthropy, fasting, paying of tithes, circumcision, 
counting of beads, baptism, penance, saying of 
masses, turning of prayer-wheels, or making of pil- 
grimages) has, in different times and regions, been 
a mistake of earthly-minded men. On that subject 
Paul uses the following plain language: — 

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works 
of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we 
believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by 
faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law" (Gal. 
2:16). 



168 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

And Paul argues the subject of works and faith, 
even mentioning baptism in his discussion, in the 
following language: — 

"If there had been a law given which could make 
alive, verily righteousness would have been of the law. 
But the scripture shut up all things under sin, that the 
promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to them 
that believe. But before faith came, we were kept in 
ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which should 
afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our 
tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by 
faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under 
a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through faith, in 
Christ Jesus, For as many of you as were baptized unto 
Christ did put on Christ" (Gal. 3:21-27). 

But so filled with disrespect for the Bible is 
the follower of Campbell that he is in the habit of 
quoting that last sentence, apart from its connection, 
to support his doctrine that righteousness is of 
baptism ; thus making Paul antagonize the whole of 
his own argument. And we have been compelled to 
show^ that Gal. 3 : 27 does not teach Campbellism, by 
quoting the preceding sentence, "for ye are all sons 
of God through faith in Christ Jesus." 



But let us continue the Bible direct refutations 
of Campbellism: — 

Acts 15 : 8-9. "And God, who knoweth the heart, bare 
them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did 
unto us; and he made no distinction between us and them, 
cleansing their hearts by faith." 

Eph. 2 : 7-8. "By grace have ye been saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God." 

Xow r remembering that all Christians place the 
experience of faith before the act of baptism, 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 169 

observe the force of the following Bible state- 
ments : — 

John 3 : 18. "He that believeth on him is not judged." 

Luke 8 : 12. "Then cometh the devil, and taketh away 
the word from their heart, that they may not believe and 
be saved." 

John 3 : 36. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal 
life." 

John 6 : 28-29. "They said therefore unto him, What 
must we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus 
answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, 
that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." 

Rom. 5 : 2. "We have had our access by faith into 
this grace wherein we stand." 

Rom. 4 : 3. "Abraham believed God, and it was 
reckoned unto him for righteousness." 



This mode of salvation, the Bible plan, accounts 
for revivals, for momentary or instantaneous conver- 
sions, for immediate pardon; for such cases as that 
of the dying thief, for the 3,000 at Pentecost, and for 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit while Peter was 
preaching at the house of Cornelius. Bead this 
doctrine of faith in the following long passage : — 

Rom. 3 : 21-26. "But now apart from the law a right- 
eousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed 
by the law and the prophets ; even the righteousness of God 
through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; 
for there is no distinction ; for all have sinned, and fall 
short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his 
grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom 
God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his 
blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing 
over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of 
God; for the showing, (I say), of his righteousness at 
this present season : that he might himself be just, and the 
justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." 

What is the doctrine? Evidently, that the 
righteousness of Christ is imputed to the penitent 



170 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

believer, when he embraces it by faith; and he is 
counted good in Christ, because he believes in him. 
And the Apostle goes on thus : — 

Rom. 3:27. " Where then is the glorying? It is 
excluded. By what manner of law? of works? Nay; but 
by a law of faith." 

There is heavenly wisdom in this law of justi- 
fication by faith, instead of by works. If salvation 
were by works, it would cause pride and boasting, 
like that of the Pharisees that went up to the temple 
to pray, and related to God his good deeds. 

If salvation were of works, it would be a matter 
of law, legal; the works would have to be perfect, 
which would cut off grace, as Paul said : — 

Rom. 4 : 4-6. "Now to him that worketh, the reward 
is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him 
that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the 
ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Even as 
David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom 
God reckoneth righteousness apart from works." 

But if salvation were by works, what sinner 
could be saved from his sins? For the works must 
be perfect, if we are to be saved by them : "f or who- 
soever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in 
one point, he is become guilty of all" (James 2: 10). 
And what sinner desires to wait till he is perfect? 
not failing in one point ; in thought, word, or deed ; 
either in sins of omission, or commission ? 

If a citizen obeys all laws but stealing, he goes 
to prison for stealing. If he had been thoroughly 
honest in all his conduct till sixty years of age, and 
then were to commit one act of burglary, he would 
be condemned as a criminal. 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 171 

So of all law of justification by works. If 
"one owes $10,000, and pays all but one dollar/' the 
debt is not paid. Works are like a chain ; breaking 
one link, breaks the chain. 

But salvation by faith makes it all of grace, 
"grace to pardon all my sins;" and the penitent 
cries, "Here, Lord, I give myself away, 'tis all that 
I can do;" and he is accepted in the Beloved, 
because his faith shows the disposition of his heart, 
mind and spirit. 

Eemission, pardon, or justification by baptism 
or other works is a dangerous theory ; because, with 
all our good works (Luke 17:10), we are yet 
"unprofitable servants;" because, there is not one 
that sinneth not; because, no true man offers his 
works to God, when asking for mercy; because, the 
good we do being nothing more than our duty, can- 
not atone for our omissions and transgressions. 

The danger of trusting in baptism, or other 
work, for salvation, or remission, is plain from the 
following words of Paul : — 

Gal. 3:9-11. "So tlien they that are of faith are 
blessed with the faithful Abraham. For as many as are 
of the works of the law are under a curse : for it is written, 
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things that 
are written in the book of the law, to do them. Now that 
no man is justified by the law before God, is evident: for, 
The righteous shall live by faith." 

The law of God demands that all his creatures, 
on pain of final death, should obey his law of perfect 
righteousness. But men coming short of this, the 
gospel offers mercy and salvation to all who repent 
of sin, desiring to live a holy life, and put their trust, 
their faith, no longer in themselves, but in Christ 



172 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

for salvation. And this faith may be exercised 
instantly. The great obstruction to it is sin ; which 
must be repented of, or the sinner will not put his 
trust in Christ. 

"God so loved the world that he gave his only 
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should 
not perish, but have everlasting life." 

Jesus meant that when he said it; and to 
contradict him is rebellion. 

Thus the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ 
is full and free. It begins in the heart of the best 
Being of the universe, reaches down to the most 
degraded sinner and touches his heart, banishing 
his woes and guilt, purifying him by faith. The 
most friendless, homeless, wanderer on the parched 
desert of sin, in the multitude or in solitude, may 
find a home, a Friend, and the water of life for his 
thirsty heart. Christ's gospel reaches all woes, 
it reaches the greatest difficulties, and it reaches to 
the mightiest distances. It is as broad as earth's 
remotest bound, and always wipes away the tears 
of sorrow for sin, and makes the angels rejoice over 
"one sinner that repenteth." The gospel is a light 
in the valley of humiliation, through which the 
sinner must march, and it is a light in the valley 
and shadow of death, to compensate him in part for 
the tears he shed when turning from sin. 

Yes; the pardon of God is not limited by the 
convenience of a priesthood, nor the difficulties of 
a ceremony for which a preacher may not be pre- 
pared. Christianity surely is a religion fully as 
gracious to the penitent as the Jewish; and a 



BIBLE TEACHING REFUTES CAMPBELLISM 173 

thousand years before Christ came into the world 
old David said, 

"For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive, and 
abundant in lovingkindness unto all them that call upon 
thee" (Ps. 86:5). 

Although he was a Jew, David did not have to 
wait for some ceremony: for his God was "good, 
and ready to forgive." And the God of the Chris- 
tian is equally "ready," even sending servants to 
say, "Come, for all things are now ready." And 
Jesus says, "I came that they may have life, and 
may have abundantly." That is the teaching of 
God's word always. "And the Spirit and the bride 
say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. 
And he that is athirst, let him come: he that will, 
let him take the water of life freely." 



CAMPBELLISM LEADS TO THE ADOPTION OF 
SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 

One is, 

That the kingdom of heaven was not open till 
Pentecost. 

We have already shown the incorrectness of 
this position, and in other wording will show it 
again; but the error is a necessity of Campbellism, 
to get rid of the example and teachings of Jesus 
during his visible ministry. 

Campbell words his doctrine as follows : — 

"Peter, to whom was (sic) committed the keys of the 
kingdom of heaven, opened the kingdom to the Jews on 
Pentecost" (Christian Baptist, pp. 421-422). 

Because Jesus said to Peter (Mat. 16:19) "I 
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of 
heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," Campbell 
argues that Peter opened the gates of the kingdom 
of heaven at Pentecost: — 

1. Although at Pentecost Peter said nothing 
about any closed kingdom; 

2. Although at Pentecost Peter said nothing 
about any keys; 

3. Although at Pentecost Peter himself did not 
yet fully understand the Christian religion, and God 
later gave him more instruction (Acts 10:9-16, 
28-43; 11:1-18) ; 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 175 

4. And although Campbell dare make no 
greater claim than that "Peter opened the kingdom 
to the Jews" on the day of Pentecost. 

Then why should Campbell everlastingly quote 
Acts 2 : 38, spoken by Peter on the day of Pentecost, 
to us Gentiles, as revealing the way for us to get 
into the kingdom; when Peter had not yet spoken 
to Gentiles at all, and did not yet know that Gentiles 
were to enter the kingdom. 

And notice the force of this: — 

As soon as Peter got his own eyes open about 
the Gentiles, from the lesson that God gave him 
by the great sheet let down from heaven (Acts 
10: 11), if he did any "opening of the kingdom" to 
the Gentiles, it was in the following language: — 

That through Jesus' "name every one that belleveth 
on him shall receive remission of sins" (Acts 10:43). 

If Peter ever "opened" the kingdom of heaven 
it was in that saying, at the close of his first sermon 
to Gentiles. That sermon did not put "baptism 
across the door." It did not put the kingdom of 
heaven on an island. That sermon threw the door 
wide open to "every" believer. Observe, every 
believer. And remember, every convert not a 
hypocrite believes before he is baptized. 

That sermon of Peter, his first sermon to 
Gentiles, in which he "opened the kingdom," if he 
ever opened it, was not on the day of Pentecost; 
and on the day of Pentecost Peter had not yet 
understood the Christian religion; which statement 
I will fully prove when considering the similar 
Campbellite error : that the gospel was not preached 
till Pentecost. 



176 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Let no reader understand, or feel, for a moment, 
that I am not justified in this reflection on Peter: 
for Jesus himself had great difficulty in keeping 
Peter straight; and after he rose from the dead he 
rebuked him; and one time he questioned his love 
in such a way that "Peter was grieved" about it; 
and, on the spirit of the very argument I am now 
making on Peter, we read Paul's words as follows : — 

Gal. 2 : 11-16. "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I 
resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned. 
For before that certain came from James, he ate with the 
Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated 
himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision. And 
the rest of the Jews dissembled likewise with him; inso- 
much that even Barnabas was carried away with their 
dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not 
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, T said unto 
Cephas before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest as do 
the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, how compellest thou 
the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We being Jews by 
nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, yet knowing that 
a man is not justified by the works of the law but through 
faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, 
that we might be justified by faith in Christ. ,, 

Then I claim that when Jesus gave Peter the 
"keys of the kingdom of heaven," it was in no Popish 
or Campbellite sense; but as he gives the keys to 
every believing minister of the gospel who openly 
declares that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the 
living God." 

In fact, after the words to Peter on which 
Campbell relies, Jesus used the following words to 
his disciples in general : — 

Mat. 18:18-19. "Verily I say unto you. What things 
soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; 
and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be 
loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, that if two of 
you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 177 

shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in 
heaven." 

And still later, and after he rose from the dead, 
he used the strong language to his disciples con- 
tained in the following passage: — 

John 20 : 21-23. "Jesus therefore said to them again, 
Peace be unto you : as the Father hath sent me, even so 
send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on 
them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit : 
whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them ; 
whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." 

It is evident that Peter was only one among the 
diseiples. 

But Campbell also argues in the following 
language that the kingdom of heaven was not set 
up till the day of Pentecost: — 

"Again, the King himself must be glorified before his 
authority could be established on earth; for till he received 
the promise of the Spirit from his Father, and was placed 
on his throne, the Apostles could not receive it; so that 
Christ's ascension to heaven, and coronation, were indis- 
pensable to the commencement of this Reign of Heaven" 
(The Christian System, p. 180). 

Observe carefully that Campbell argues that till 
Christ "received the promise of the Spirit from his 

Father, the Apostles could not receive it; 

so that Christ's ascension to heaven, and coronation, 
were indispensable to the commencement of this 
Reign of Heaven." 

But this denying to Jesus the blessing of the 
Holy Spirit till some time after he ascended on high 
casts slime on the record of the following facts: — 

1. He was even begotten of the Holy Spirit : — 

Mat. 1 : 18. "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on 
this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to 



178 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Joseph, before they came together she was found with 
child of the Holy Spirit." 

Mat. 1 : 20. "An angel of the Lord appeared unto 
him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear 
not to take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is 
conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit." 

Because previous to that time, 



''The angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 
Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most 
High shall overshadow thee : wherefore also the holy thing 
which is begotten shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 
1:35). 

2. At his baptism the Holy Spirit descended 
upon him. And it continued there. 

John 1 : 32-33. "And John bare witness, saying, I have 
beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven; and 
it abode upon him. And I knew him not : but he that sent 
me to baptize in water, he said unto me. Upon whomsoever 
thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, 
the same is he that baptizeth in the Holy Spirit." 

Jesus' own language supports this view: for he 
said, 

"If I in the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the 
Kingdom of God come upon you" (Mat. 12:28). 

3. This blessed communion of the Holy Spirit 
continued with him always; so that after he rose 
from the dead, and before the day of Pentecost, 
"He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive 
ye the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22), as we have 
quoted. 

Hence, it is evident that Campbell's argument, 
as far as it is based on Jesus' lack of the Holy Spirit, 
is false. 

But in every argument in which Campbell tries 
to establish his doctrine he is disrespectful toward 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 179 

Jesus, except in rounded periods of high sounding 
but empty words. He lauds Jesus while discrown- 
ing him. 



Another subsidiary error of some of Campbell's 
followers is, — 

That Christ was baptized to show the mode. 

The cause of the statement of this error by some 
of the followers of Campbell (though not all) is 
that all admit that Jesus had no sins to be 
remitted; and therefore his act in being baptized 
could not have done in order to obtain the remission 
of his sins. 

But this explanation of Jesus' baptism is not 
creditable: for there is no record that w T hen Jesus 
was baptized there was any dispute or uncertainty 
on that point; and there was no interest whatever 
in such a question. John was baptizing multi- 
tudes; and the mode was plain in every act. 

The explanation also contradicts the statement 
of Jesus: "Thus it becometh us to fulfil all right- 
eousness." He did not indicate that he did it to 
show the mode. It was to do right. 



Another error of Campbellism is, — 

That the gospel was not preached till Pentecost. 

The motive underlying the teaching of this error 

is the same as that underlying the keeping of the 

crown off Jesus' head till Pentecost; which error 

we have already refuted; its purpose being to get 



180 CAMPBBLLISM IS REBELLION 

rid of the books singularly called the "Gospels," if 
Campbellism be true. 

We have already hinted at the sophism used to 
prove the error; that is, that Jesus had not yet been 
crucified, and therefore the gospel message of 
salvation through his blood could not yet be 
announced. 

The doctrine itself Campbell states as follows: 

"Thus we find that when the gospel was announced 
on Pentecost, and when Peter opened the kingdom of 
heaven to the Jews, he commanded them to be immersed 
for the remission of sins. This is quite sufficient, if we 
had not another word on the subject. I say it is quite 
sufficient to show that the forgiveness of sins and Christian 
immersion were, in their first proclamations by the holy 
apostles inseparably connected together. Peter, to whom 
was (sic) committed the keys, opened the kingdom of 
heaven in this manner, and made repentance, or reforma- 
tion, and immersion equally necessary to forgiveness" 
(Christian Baptist, pp. 416-417). 

The follower of Campbell associates this idea 
necessarily with the statement that the church of 
Christ was not established till the day of Pentecost. 
But this plainly contradicts the opinion of the 
disciples who were gathered in the upper room at 
Jerusalem, 120 of them, who prayed and waited for 
the promised blessing, but did not wait to act as a 
church : for they elected an apostle to take the place 
of the traitor, Judas. And this election of Matthias 
to one of the highest positions of the church was of 
such an official nature that it is recorded (Acts 1 : 26) 
that he was "numbered with the eleven apostles," 
officers who had been appointed by the Lord Him- 
self. That action shows that those 120 Christians 
regarded themselves as a church before the day of 
Pentecost, if they ever did. 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 181 

The Campbellite error that the gospel was not 
preached till Pentecost does not harmonize either 
with (1) the logic of the history, nor (2) with the 
statements of Scripture. 

1. We have already shown that Christ forgave 
sins before he was crucified. He did it repeatedly. 

It is a fact that his death was announced again 
and again before it occurred. He himself told the 
disciples plainly that he would be crucified and rise 
again. He did this so impressively that they 
"questioned among themselves what the rising again 
from the dead should mean" (Mark 9:10). And 
the very manner of his death he made so plain to 
them that they understood his solemn figure of 
speech, when he said that his follower must take up 
his cross and follow him. He told the incredulous 
that his great sign would be that of the prophet 
Jonah, the resurrection. John the Baptist, even in 
the beginning of Jesus' ministry, said, "Behold, the 
Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
world." What is the logic of the word "Lamb," in 
such preaching, but the logic of the altar? When 
Jesus called himself the "Good Shepherd," and said 
that he gave his life for the sheep, he was telling 
that he would sacrifice. 

The truth is, There w^as not one valuable 
doctrine of Christianity in connection with salva- 
tion, there was nothing worthy of being called 
"gospel," or glad tidings, that was not preached 
before the day of Pentecost. In fact, Jesus was the 
Savior, not Peter; and the Son of God was even 
called Jesus (Mat. 1 : 21), "for it was he that should 
save his people from their sins." 



182 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

2. Now let us consider the direct statements 
of Scripture, proving that the gospel was preached 
before the day of Pentecost: — 

Mark 1 : 1. "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus 
Christ, the Son of God." 

Mark 1 : 14. "Now after John was delivered up, Jesus 
came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God." 

Mark 1 : 15. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom 
of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe in the gospel." 

Mat. 4 : 23. "And Jesus went about in all Galilee, 
teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of 
the kingdom." 

Luke 7 : 22. "The poor have good tidings preached to 
them" (the words of Jesus). 

Luke 16: 16. (The words of Jesus) "The law and the 
prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of 
the kingdom of God is preached." 

Mat. 12:28. (The words of Jesus) "If I by the Spirit 
of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come 
upon you." 

Hebrews 2 : 3. "How shall we escape, if we neglect 
so great a salvation? which at the first having been spoken 
through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that 
heard ; God also bearing witness with them, both by signs 
and wonders, and by manifold powers, and by gifts of the 
Holy Spirit, according to his own will." 



How plainly this last passage reveals that the 
salvation w T hich the apostles preached had "first" 
been spoken through the Lord! And the dignity 
of Jesus as the "Alpha and the Omega/' as the 
"Author and Perfecter of our faith/' is made beauti- 
ful in the following language : — 

Hebrews 1 : 1-2. "God, having of old time spoken unto 
the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers 
manners, hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in 
his Son." 

The writer does not state that "in the end of 
these days" God had spoken by Peter. And there 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 183 

is no reference to Pentecost, though the writer 
speaks of the "end of these days.'' 

In fact, on the day of Pentecost Peter had not 
yet fully accepted genuine Christianity; and the 
institutions that he would have established, had God 
afterward let him alone in his ignorance, would 
have been merely a Jewish sect, receiving no 
Gentiles. And the vision of the sheet let down from 
heaven (Acts 10:11), and the command of God 
(Acts 10:15), "What God hath cleansed, that call 
not thou common/' caused Peter, on entering the 
house of Cornelius, to admit his former error; say- 
ing, (Acts 10: 28), "Ye know that it is an unlawful 
thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, 
or to come unto one of another nation; but God 
hath showed me that I should not call any man 
common or unclean." On that day Peter became 
aware of the exact and full spirit of Christianity, 
saying (Acts 10:34), "'Of a truth I perceive that 
God is no respecter of persons ! but in every nation, 
he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is 
accepted with him." 

Therefore we insist that Campbell and his 
followers are wrong. Jesus himself preached the 
gospel ; and every time he spoke, it was with author- 
ity. He did not say, Wait for Peter to preach the 

gospel ; but he said, "Come unto me learn of 

me and ve shall find rest unto vour souls." 



Jesus says, — 

John 12 : 48. "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth 
not my sayings, hath one that jndgeth him ; the word that 
I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day." 



184 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

What a terrible threat against Campbell that 
last sentence is, for rejecting Christ's sayings; that 
same word shall judge him in the last day. And 
this agrees with the tremendous impeachment as to 
moral character uttered by Paul against those con- 
senting not to Jesus' words : — 

1 Tim. 6 : 3-5. "If any man teacheth a different 
doctrine, and consenteth not to sound words, even the 
words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which 
is according to godliness ; he is puffed up, knowing nothing, 
but doting about questionings and disputes of words, 
whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, 
wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the 
truth." 

And concerning the moral bearings of teaching 
an error that consents not to "the words of our Lord 
Jesus Christ/' I am sure that Peter would agree 
with Paul: for this is what Peter said in his first 
sermon to Gentiles: — 

Acts 10:36-38. "The word which he sent unto the 
children of Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus 

Christ (he is Lord of all) that saying ye yourselves 

know, which was published throughout all Judea, beginning 
from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached." 

This language of Peter was in his first gospel 
sermon to Gentiles. Therefore it is appropriate to 
us. He declares the "beginning was after the 
baptism w r hich John preached." He did not connect 
it with Pentecost. It was, "beginning from 
Galilee." 

"Therefore," let us join with Peter, Luke, Mark, 
Paul, Matthew, John and every Bible writer and 
preacher, 

''Therefore, let us also, seeing we are compassed about 

with so great a cloud of witnesses look unto Jesus 

the author and perfecter of our faith." 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 185 

Now let us turn to another secondary error of 
Campbellism : — 

That the sinner should not pray. 

This doctrine seems so horrid, in view of Jesus' 
teaching about the publican, who went up with the 
Pharisee to the temple to pray, that I am amazed 
at the following words of Alexander Campbell: — 

''Hence in the moral fitness of things in the evan- 
gelical economy, baptism or immersion is made the first 
act of a Christian's life, or rather the regenerating act 
itself; in which the person is properly born again — 'born 
of water and spirit' — without which into the kingdom 
of Jesus he cannot enter. No prayers, songs of praise, 
no acts of devotion in the new economy, are enjoined on 
the unbaptized" (Christian Baptist, ed. 1835, p. 439). 

"The Apostles, in all their speeches and replies to 
interrogatories, never commanded an inquirer to pray, read, 
or sing, as preliminary to his coming; but always com- 
manded and proclaimed immersion as the first duty, or 
the first thing to be done, after a belief of testimony. 
Hence, neither praying, singing, reading, repenting, sor- 
rowing, resolving, nor waiting to be better, was the con- 
verting act. Immersion alone was the act of turning to 
God" (The Christian System, p. 223. The italics are 
Campbell's). 

But to teach such doctrine, to argue that the 
sinner's prayer will not be heard by the Lord, or to 
discourage the sinner from praying because he has 
not been immersed, indicates a rebellious spirit 
toward the King. The right of petition is respected 
even among men ; how much more in the kingdom of 
God. Why should a preacher interpose his priestly 
form or his cold logic between the sinner and the 
Lord? I will tell you the fear of Campbellism: — 

If some sinner, before baptism, were to pray to 
the Lord, receive answer to prayer, and enjoy what 
many call "the blessing," the assurance of sins for- 
given, his gratitude would flow out to the King 



18G CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

himself; and his love would be given, neither to 
Peter nor Campbell, nor to some later preacher, but 
to Jesus. 

But to discourage the sinner from prayer to the 

King is rebellion How ridiculous the 

theory makes the following instruction of Jesus 
himself, after he had given the Lord's prayer, in 
which he had told men to ask for forgiveness: — 

Luke 11 : 9-10, 13. "And I say unto you, Ask, and it 
shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it 
shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh 
receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that 

knocketh it shall be opened If ye then, being evil, 

know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much 
more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to 
them that ask him." 

Now consider how this theory of Campbell 
might operate: — 

Here goes a sinner toward the water of his 
appointed baptism. He has never sung praises to 
God, except for hire, or as a matter of entertain- 
ment. He has never rejoiced in redeeming love. 
He has never performed an "act of devotion." In 
fact, he has never kneeled in prayer, or asked for 
the forgiveness of sin. He has not the Spirit of 
God in his heart, or any special sorrow for sin. He 
has only a theory in his head that Jesus is the Son 
of God, which he has reasoned out from evidence, 

and a determination to reform his life 

And if a passer should ask him if he was going to 
the bank, he might simply answer, I am on my way 
to the bank of immersion, to get the remission of 
my sins and the Holy Ghost. I intend to be 
immersed. Then I will be a Christian: for Camp- 
bell says, "immersion is the first act of a Christian's 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 187 

life, the regenerating act itself." But if I sin after 
that, I will not have to be baptized any more ; I will 
pray for forgiveness. Now, by immersion I will be 
in Christ. The first time I seek remission it is not 
necessary to pray; that is not enjoined on me until 
after I am immersed. I always did dislike the idea 
of praying; it makes a man seem dependent; and 
I will put off praying as long as I can. And now 
I am going to get into the kingdom of God without 
prayer. I wish that the New Testament taught 
that a fellow could have his sins remitted after he is 
in the kingdom as easily as before; that is, by bap- 
tism. Then I would not have to pray, to be 
"instant in prayer/' to "continue steadfastly in 
prayer," to pray, to plead, and to wait like a child 
for an answer. I could myself appoint the time to 
have my new sins remitted, by arranging with the 
preacher for the date. And I would just go to the 

water when I felt in danger Thus the 

sinner might parade to the water, were the spirit of 
Campbell's doctrine correct. 

But from his own philosophy Campbell made a 
tactical error in not teaching the re-baptism of pro- 
fessors of religion for sins committed after the first 
immersion; basing his doctrine on the form of the 
Greek word for baptize, and on such Scripture as 
the following: — 

Rev. 2 : 5. "Remember therefore from whence thou art 
fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come 
to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, 
except thou repent." 

This would have made the whole progress of the 
reformed man a passage through baths, "of water," 



188 CAMPBBLLISM IS REBELLION 

"washing away his sins;" continued baptismal 
regenerations. 

Now notice a few Bible examples (1) and a 
few Bible precepts (2) : — 

1. There was Cornelius the centurion, to w T hom 
an angel appeared before he was baptized, and 
said, — 

"Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a 
memorial before God" (Acts 10:4). 

These words show that God had heard his 
prayers, whether he had forgiven him or not. 

There was Saul (Paul), to whom the Lord sent 
Ananias, saying, — 

"And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go to the 
street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house 
of one Judas, for one named Saul, a man of Tarsus: 
for behold, he prayeth" (Acts 9:11). 

2. Now read the Bible teachings: — 

Acts 2 : 21. "Whosoever shall call on the name of the 
Lord shall be saved." 

Romans 10 : 12. "For there is no distinction between 
Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is 
rich unto all that call upon him." 



Take another secondary error of Campbell- 
ism: — 

That the Neio Testament was a will, and not in 
force till Jesus died. 

One very prominent follower of Campbell 
worded the doctrine as follows : — 

"Moreover, if there is a new testament, and, as Paul 
says, a testament is only of force after the testator's death 
(Heb. 9 : 16, 17), it is evident that you must not only come 
away from the Old Testament, but from the four Gospels 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 189 

likewise, before you can learn what there is for you in this 
will. It was not of force until after Jesus died, and rose 
again; and it passed into the hands of his executors, the 
twelve apostles, and was by them opened and announced" 
(Isaac Errett, "First Principles," p. 4). 

This error is pressed on us to make us believe 
that all the examples and precepts concerning for- 
giveness mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and 
John are of no value as instruction to us concerning 
the remission of sins, much less, example, or author- 
ity; the Campbellite claiming that the new will, or 
testament, (by which we must understand the book 
commonly called the New Testament), was not in 
force till Jesus, the testator, was dead; that the 
New Testament was a will, or testament, in the sense 
of a document disposing of an estate, not in force 
till the person making it was dead. 

Alexander Campbell himself uses the following 
language : — 

"No man could now be pardoned as Abel was — as 
Enoch was — as David was — as the thief upon the cross 
was. These all lived before the second will of God was 
declared" (The Christian System, p. 256). (The italics are 
Campbell's). 

Another follower of Campbell w T ords the doc- 
trine as follows : — 

"Jesus could forgive sins any way he pleased while 
he was upon the earth, but now we can only be saved by 

the provisions of the will If we are to receive 

riches through Christ's will, it becomes at once an instru- 
ment of great interest to us. A human will bequeathing 
a few thousand dollars would receive the closest attention 
and challenge the greatest interest. The prospective heirs 
would all be on hand to hear every word read. They 
would listen with eagerness to every word and syllable 
and catch every shade of meaning. There is a wonderful 
parallel between a human will and the divine will. Paul 
says in his letter to the Hebrews that where there is a 



190 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

testament, there is also the death of the testator. In 
other words, a will never goes into effect until after the 
death of the maker" (W. T. Brooks, in Christian Standard, 
Dec. 11, 1909, p. 2147). 

This error disregards the fact that Jesus him- 
self did not write a word of the New Testament (as 
far as writing is concerned) ; that not a word of it 
was written during his earthly life, and that every 
word of it was written after he ascended on high. 
Therefore, if his death would have put the book of 
Acts and the epistles in force, it would have put the 
Gospels in force also. Therefore, the theory of will 
(testament) applies to the w r hole, if it applies to 
any part. If the Gospels were not in force, the 
remainder was not in force. 

But the will (testament) error seems to har- 
monize with the before mentioned theories that the 
gospel was not preached, nor the kingdom set up, 
till the day of Pentecost; which we have already 
refuted, unless this theory sustains them. And as 
to this theory, the follower of Campbell naturally, 
and possibly innocently, quotes the following Scrip- 
ture, according to the American Version : — 

Heb. 9 : 16-17. "For where a testament is, there must 
of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a 
testament is of force where there hath been death: for it 
does never avail while he that made it liveth." 

The King James Version makes the doctrine 
fully as strong. 

It seems to teach that the new will, or new 
testament, could not be in force till Jesus was dead, 
(if Jesus was the person who made it). 

That such a translation is absurd, will appear 
plainly when we remember that Jesus rose from the 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 191 

dead. That surely would have put him into 
possession of his estate again, as a matter of right, 
on the third day. Surely Christian people ought 
to be the last ones to argue Jesus out of control of 
his property or kingdom. They should unhesi- 
tatingly yield full authority to him, in heaven or on 
earth; and all that he had commanded should be in 
force, whether he be called "dead" or alive. 

But the translators took an undue liberty with 
the Bible in Hebrews 9 : 16, 17, in translating several 
words : pef3auo<; Cbebaios), lax™ (ischuo) and Sta^/o; 
(diatheke.) In the case of the last of these words, 
SiaOrjKri, they took an exceedingly improper liberty, 
in translating it by the word testament; because it 
does not mean that, and it cannot mean that. And 
the American translators seem to have known that 
fact: for in the immediately preceding connection 
they have correctly translated it covenant, and in 
the immediately following connection they have 
correctly translated it covenant. 

The word hiad^K-q occurs in the Greek New Testa- 
ment 33 times. In the King James Version, 
whose translators do not seem to have understood 
the word, it is translated 20 times by the 
English word covenant, and 13 times by the 
English word testament. There is no case where 
the word covenant (arrangement, or agreement) 
would not make sense; that being the nearest Eng- 
lish word to the true meaning of the Greek. 

But the point of most disagreeable significance 
concerning the translators of the American Version 
is that they rendered the Greek word hiaO^K-q in 
every place where it occurs in the New Testament, 



192 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

by the English word covenant, except in this one 
place; Heb. 9:16-17. 

Why they turned away from the true meaning. 
covenant, to use the word testament, I do not take 
space to explain. But the word hiadrjK-q does not 
mean will (testament). 

To make this plain, the reader may take the 
following passages, where Sta6rjKrj occurs in the 
Greek, and insert the word will, or testament, in its 
place, and see the result, as to good sense : — 

Acts 3 : 25. "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of 
the will (or testament) which God made with your fathers, 
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families 
of the earth be blessed." 

Acts 7:8. "And he gave him the will (or testament) 
of circumcision : and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circum- 
cised him the eighth day." 

Rom. 9 : 4. "Who are Israelites ; whose is the adoption, 
and the glory, and the will (or testament)." 

Gal. 4 : 24. "Which things contain an allegory : for 
these women are two wills (or testaments)." 

Heb. 8:10. "For this is the will (or testament) that 
I will make with the house of Israel after those days, 
saith the Lord," etc. 

Heb. 9 : 3-4. "And after the second veil, the tabernacle 
which is called the Holy of holies; having a golden altar 
of incense, and the ark of the will (or testament) overlaid 
round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding 
the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables 
of the will (or testament)." 

Rev. 11 : 19. "And there was opened the temple of God 
that is in heaven ; and there was seen in his temple the ark 
of his will (or testament)." 

In none of these passages should it look as if 
God was dead, and had made his will (or testament) 
before he died. The writers do not mean that. 

The great commentator, Stuart, objects to the 
word covenant, on the ground that the Greek word 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 193 

veKpos (nelcros) of the text refers to dead men 
exclusively. While this is true in Homer and some 
other poets, it is not true as to all authors. For 
I have found the following passages in the Bible 
itself, where veKpbs does not refer to dead men. And 
you may observe that two of them are in Hebrews : — 

Heb. 6 : 1. "Not laying again a foundation of repent- 
ance from dead (nekron) works, and of faith toward God." 

Heb. 9 : 14. "Purge your conscience from dead 
(nekron) works to serve the living God." 

Rom. 7:8. "For apart from the law sin is (as) dead 
(nekra) " 

James 2 : 17. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is 

dead (nekras)." 

James 2: 20. "Faith without works is dead (nekra)." 
James 2 : 26. "For as the body without the spirit is 

dead (nekron), so faith without works is dead (nekra)" 

The reader easily sees that in the foregoing 
passages the Greek adjective veKpbs refers to works, 
sin, faith, and the human body. 

And there are several Greek words signifying 
victims, or lambs*, with which the word veKpbcs 
(nekrois), the form in which it is used in Hebrews 
9 : 17, may agree in gender, number and case ; so 
that Stuart's objection must be dismissed, notwith- 
standing his learning. 

In the American Version, the word hiaO^K-q being 

always translated covenant except in this place 

(Heb. 9: 16-17), we have the right to use the word 

covenant here, if it harmonizes with the other 

Scriptures and good sense. Now turn to the 

following : — 

Acts 3 : 25. "Ye are the sons of the prophets, and of 
the covenant (diatheke) which God made with your fathers, 
saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the families 
of the earth be blessed." 



194 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

It is evident that the SiaOrjKrj refers in this place 
to the covenant that God made with Abraham and 
the fathers. We turn to the Old Testament, and 
find the Hebrew word for it, herith. It occurs in 
the Old Testament frequently; and on it the 
covenant idea (or testament idea, whichever it be) 
of the New Testament is based. It is translated 
covenant 248 times; league 17 times; confederate 1 
time; and confederacy 1 time. 

It is then evident that covenant is the idea in 
Hebrews 9 : 16-17. God never made his will, in the 
sense of a testament. 

And this is certain : God made a covenant with 
Noah, and it was not necessary for either one of 
them to die, for it to be in force. He made a 
covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, with Jacob, 
with Moses and the children of Israel; and every 
covenant was in force before the parties to it died. 

If the Old Testament had not been in force till 
God was dead, the children of Israel would have 
been free from the law for a long time. But every- 
thing uttered by Jehovah, or Jesus, was and is 
immediately of authority. 

Our readers know that the Septuagint, the 
translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew 
into the Greek by the seventy-two Jewish scholars, 
was honored in the time of the New Testament 
writers, and was much quoted. Therefore the 
Septuagint use of the word Siatf^ may be respected 
as a guide to its real meaning. In that version 
I have examined the books of Genesis, Exodus, 
Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, (the books 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 195 

that speak most frequently of the covenants that 
God made with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses 
and the children of Israel, and the ark of the cov- 
enant, and the tables of the covenant) ; and I find 
the word StaOrjKrj used 84 times. In the American 
Version it is translated covenant 76 times; and in 
not one of the eight other cases is it 
translated by an English word signifying will, or 
testament. And I find nothing to weaken the 
position that the word in Scripture use never means 
will (in the sense of testament), or testament (in 
the sense of will, or document disposing of an 
estate). 

How culpable then were the translators, who 
rendered Heb. 9 : 16-17 in such a way as to imply 
that Jesus' commands were not authoritative till 
after his death; that he had no authority when 
choosing his apostles, when cursing a barren fig 
tree, when compelling the fish of Galilee's waters to 
provide him and Peter tribute money, or when 
directing Peter to follow him. 

The absurdity of the King James translation of 
Hebrews 9 : 16-17 was recognized by Campbell him- 
self, and he rendered the passage into the following 
difficult English: — 

"Now where there is such an institution, the death of 
the instituted (sacrifice) must necessarily intervene: for 
since (the) institution is ratified over the dead, it has no 
force while the instituted (sacrifice) lives." 

The great Macknight translates into the follow- 
ing difficult words: — 

"For where a covenant, there is a necessity that the 
death of the appointed sacrifices be brought in. For a 



196 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

covenant is firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hatn 
force "whilst the appointed sacrifice liveth." 

It is now evident that the New Testament is 
not a testament in the sense of a will. It is what 
is most nearly expressed by the word covenant. 
And the writer of Hebrews meant that a covencmt 
was made (pe/Satos) firm, sure, steadfast, by the 
dead; that is, by victims, or sacrifices; not that it 
was put in force. That phrase is too strong to 
express the true Greek meaning. And what the 
apostle meant by the death of the appointed victim 
in this case was, that the New Covenant would not 
have (Ivx™) prevailed, unless the appointed victim, 
Jesus, had died. It is what Jesus referred to in 
establishing the communion ("the new covenant in 
my blood"). That covenant was made to prevail 
by the death of Jesus. 

That the word in Hebrews 9 : 16-17 (lax™) 
translated "avail," might have been translated 
(Icrxvoi) prevail (in harmony with its natural mean- 
ing) will appear from the following passages where 
it is so translated: — 

Rev. 12 : 8. "And they prevailed not, neither was their 
place found any more in heaven." 

Acts 19 : 16. "And the man in whom the evil spirit 
was leaped on them, and mastered both of them, and 
prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house 
naked and wounded." 

Acts 19 : 20. "So mightily grew the word of the Lord 
and prevailed." 

All can see that Heb. 9 : 16-17 is no help to 
Campbellism. It does not teach that the New 
Testament is a will, nor that its principles would 
be instructive, or authoritative, only while Jesus, 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 197 

or God, was dead (depending on which of them 
made the so-called will, or testament). 

Every covenant of God is of authority as soon 
as offered; although the new covenant was not 
expected to prevail, except through the death of the 
victim, Jesus. For the same writer said (Hebrews 
7:22) "By so much also hath Jesus become the 
surety of a better covenant." And the blood of 
Jesus makes the gospel sure, and the new covenant 
to prevail. 

Let us repeat the Bible doctrine in a little differ- 
ent way : — 

The old covenant (that of the book commonly 
called the Old Testament) was given by God. In 
that covenant God appointed the victims; whether 
oxen, turtle doves, young pigeons, sheep, kids, or 
lambs. That covenant was of authority ("in 
force") as soon as Moses, the servant of God, pro- 
claimed it. And it was because the Jew admitted 
its being authoritative ("in force"), although a 
covenant, that he obeyed it, and brought the lamb 
"without blemish," of "a year old," as a victim for 
the sacrifice. And this victim made the covenant 
firm, being accepted by the Jew. But if the Jew 
had not brought the victim, although the covenant 
was authoritative ("in force"), it would not have 
been sure, or firm; the rebellious Jew setting at 
naught the covenant of God, it would not have pre- 
vailed, or been mighty, as Heb. 9 : 17 literally has it. 

Similar principles govern in the new covenant 
(that of the book commonly called the New Testa- 
ment). It was of authority ("in force") as soon 
as announced by Jesus, the Son of God. But in 



198 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

the new covenant there is a better surety than the 

lamb or kid of a Jewish flock. It is the victim 

furnished by God himself, "the Lamb of God, that 

taketh away the sin of the world." And the new 

covenant is made firm for the penitent sinner by 

belief in the crucified Christ as his Savior; and 

his sins are washed away in that precious blood by 

faith. But if the sinner now rejects the covenant 

commanded by God, his sinful rejection does not 

annul the covenant at all, nor take away its moral 

force, or authority ; the sinner is simply disobedient, 

and in his case the covenant does not prevail, is 

not strong. 

Now translate roughly, but truly: — 

For where a covenant is, it is needful that the death 
of the covenanted victim be brought. For a covenant is firm 
over dead (victims). Since it never is mighty when the 
covenanted (victim) liveth. 

It is not the death of Jesus which makes the 

gospel authoritative, but makes it prevail. I wonder 

how much of this was dimly foreseen by the prophet 

when predicting the coming of the Christ : — 

Dan. 9 : 27. "And he shall make a firm covenant with 
many for one week; and in the midst of the week he shall 
cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease." 

Knowing the prevailing influence of the cross, 
when Paul went to Corinth, he "determined to know 
nothing among them save Jesus Christ and him 
crucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). 



Another subsidiary error of Campbellism is, 
That Christ's words are of no authority concern- 
ing the matter of the remission of sins; but are of 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 199 

value in questions of ethics, or subjects interesting to 
persons already in the kingdom of heaven: because 
Jesus' words were spoken before the day of Pente- 
cost. 

We have already refuted this doctrine, and state 
it here chiefly to set it before our readers in the 
list of errors that treasonable king of errors, bap- 
tismal regeneration, marshals in his disloyal crew. 

Everybody can easily see that Campbell taught 
a doctrine not as loyal to our Savior, as that of 
John the Baptist, who said, 

"He that cometh from heaven is above all For 

he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God : for 
he giveth not the Spirit by measure. The Father loveth 
the Son, and hath given all things into his hand" (John 
3:31-35). 

But Campbell would object: he would accept 

those worshipful words of the loyal John no more 

than those of Jesus himself ; and we are compelled to 

give other proof, something written after the day of 

Pentecost. Paul says, — 

"He is the head of the body, the church: who is the 
beginning, the firstborn from the dead ; that in all things he 
might have the preeminence" (Col. 1:18). 

And it was with such a feeling, disposition and 
consciousness that Jesus had come into the world; 
and all along he taught and commanded with 
authority; and never did he hint that he would ever 
surrender it to Peter, or Campbell, or any other 
creature. And the record of one of his sermons closes 
with this claim by himself, for himself: — 

"Every one therefore that heareth these words of mine, 
and doeth them, shall be likened to a wise man, who built 

his house upon the rock And every one that 

heareth these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be 



200 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the 

sand And it came to pass, when Jesus had 

finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his 
teachings : for he taught them as one having authority" 
(Mat. 7:24-29). 

Jesus did not say, Whosoever heareth these 
sayings of mine until the day of Pentecost , and 
doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man. And 
there is no hint anywhere in all the Bible that Jesus 
has ever yet surrendered his authority, or shall 
surrender it, until "the end" when 

"He hath put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 
15:25). 



Another subsidiary error of Campbellism is, 
That the communion should ~be celebrated every 

Sunday. 

Campbell's language in some of his many 

utterances follows : 

"The nature and design of the breaking of bread are 
such as to make it an essential part of Christian worship 
in Christian assemblies" (Christian Baptist, p. 188). 

"The primitive disciples did, in all their meetings on 
the first day of the week, attend on the breaking of bread 
as an essential part of the worship due their Lord, we are 
fully persuaded" (Christian Baptist, p. 174). 

"The disciples are to break bread in all their meetings 
for worship" (Christian Baptist, p. 175). 

"The New Testament teaches that every time they met 
in honor of the resurrection of the Prince of Life, or, when 
they assembled in one place, it was a principal part of 
their entertainment, in his liberal house, to eat and drink 
with him. He keeps no dry lodgings for the saints, — no 
empty house for his friends. He never bade his house 
assemble but to eat and drink with him" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 175). 

"In the Lord's house there is the Lord's table, as part 
of the furniture, it must always be there, unless it can 
be shown that only some occasions require its presence, 
and others its absence" (The Christian System, p. 325). 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 201 

"1st. That it was an established custom or rule for 
the disciples to meet on the first day of the week. 2d. 
That the primary object of their meeting was to break 
the loaf" (The Christian System, p. 33a). 

"We act under the influence of apostolic teaching and 
precedent when we meet every Lord's day for the breaking 
of the loaf" (The Christian System, p. 336). 

"No argument can be adduced from the New Testament 
of any Christian congregation assembling on the first day 

of the week unless for the breaking of the loaf 

Christians have no authority, nor are under any obligations, 
to meet on the Lord's day, from anything which the 
Apostles said or practiced, unless it be to show forth the 
Lord's death, and to attend to those means of edification 
and comfort connected with it" (The Christian System, p. 
337). 

This error is in harmony with the whole 
philosophy of Campbellism, which puts its pressure 
on works and ceremonies. 

The Bible basis for this human rule is supposed 
to be found in the following passage: — 

Acts 20 : 7. "And upon the first day of the week, 
when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul 
discoursed with them, intending to depart on the morrow; 
and prolonged his speech until midnight." 

This passage, however, falls short of giving law 
for every-Sunday-communion, in the following par- 
ticulars : — 

1. There is no law or commandment whatever 
in Acts 20:7; 

2. There is no proof connected with that text 
that the communion was observed. It may have 
been the daily feast alluded to in Acts 2 : 46, usually 
celebrated in their homes, and supposed to have been 
a love feast; 

3. If it was the feast referred to in Acts 2 : 46, 
and that feast was the communion, and is to serve 



202 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

for an example, then Acts 2 : 46 would compel its 
observance every day of the week : for Acts 2 : 46 
says, "day by day;" 

4. But neither in Acts 2 : 46, nor in Acts 20 : 7, 
is the cup mentioned; which, makes it improbable 
that the communion is referred to: for when Paul 
speaks (1 Cor. 10:16) of the communion he says, 
"the cup of blessing which we bless," as well as "the 
bread which we break;" 

5. If it was the communion, its observance at 
this time, the first day of the week, (instead of the 
day on which the Lord established it), may 
have been accidental, because of Paul's intending 
departure on the morrow; 

6. If it be considered as referring to the com- 
munion, and be quoted as an example, we call atten- 
tion to the fact that it does not harmonize with 
Christ's example. He did not celebrate the 
communion on the day here mentioned; 

7. And if it were the communion referred to in 
Acts 20 : 27, its celebration on the first day does 
not differ from the common practice; it is only the 
law for making it weekly that differs from the com- 
mon practice; 

8. And, finally, if the weekly observance be 
made law, it is rebellious and wrong, violating the 
following instructions of the Apostle Paul : — 

Col. 2 : 16, 20. "Let no man therefore judge you in 
meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new 

moon or a sabbath day." "If ye died with 

Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though 
living in the world, do ye subject yourselves to ordinances ?" 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 203 

Thus, weekly communion, if made a rule, 
violates the Bible rule, like so many of the principles 
of Campbellism. 

But if we are to disregard Christ's words, "As 
often as ye eat this bread" (1 Cor. 11:26), which 
may suggest freedom to us as to the frequency of 
the communion, we should certainly have respect 
to the suggestiveness of the circumstances and date 
of the establishment of the communion. Every one 
knows that it was in connection with the annual 
feast, the passover; on a week-day night, and not on 
a Sunday morning at all. Surely the example of 
Jesus at Jerusalem is as much to be respected as 
that of disciples at Troas. 



Another minor error of Campbellism is this: — 

That there is now no operation of the Holy 
Spirit, except through the written Scriptures. 

Campbell words his doctrine as follows : — 

"The age of those gifts has passed away, and now the 
influence of the Holy Spirit is only felt in and by the 
word believed" (Christian Baptist, p. 49). 

"No light is communicated by the Holy Spirit in 
regenerating and converting men; which is equivalent to 
saying, that 'in conversion and sanctification the Spirit 
of God operates only through the Word of Truth' " (Camp- 
bell and Rice Debate, p. 620) . 

How this contradicts the experience of many 
a convert brought to Christ by a mother's personal 
exhortation, or the influence of the Spirit of God 
given her boy in answer to her secret prayer; the 
experience of some father touched in his heart by 
the sight of his child's becoming a Christian ! 



204 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Campbell describes a modern revival, and says, 

"From all this scene of raging enthusiasm, be admon- 
ished, my friends, to open your Bibles and hearken to the voice 
of God, which is the voice of reason. Now God speaks to us 
only by his word. By his Son, in the New Testament, he 
has fully revealed himself and his will. This is the only 
revelation of his Spirit which we are to regard" (Christian 
Baptist, p. 50). 

(But how this last quotation contradicts Camp- 
bell's other error, that Jesus' own word is not law, 
because spoken before Pentecost!) 

And how this minor error of Campbellism con- 
tradicts the following Scriptures : — 

2 Cor. 1 : 21-22. "Now he that establishes us with you 
in Christ, and anointed us, is God; who also sealed us, and 
gave us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.'' 

2 Cor. 13 : 14. "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and 
the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be 
with you all." 

Eph. 2 : 18. "Through him we both have our access in 
one Spirit unto the Father." 

Rom. 8 : 16. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our 
Spirit, that we are the children of God." 

Gal. 4 : 6. "Because ye are sons, God sent forth the 
Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba." 

1 John 4 : 13. "Hereby we know that we abide in him 
and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." 

Eph. 3 : 16. "Ye may be strengthened with power 
through his Spirit in the inner man." 

1 John 3 : 24. "Hereby we know that he abideth in us, 
by the Spirit which he gave us." 

But Campbell's doctrine makes Christianity 
mere dead works. It destroys the spirituality of 
living, breeds opposition to the inner life, and leads 
to enmity toward the Spirit of God so that the 
following words of Paul apply to it : — 

Rom. 8 : 5-11. "For they that are after the flesh mind the 
things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 205 

things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death; 
but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace: because the 
mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not sub- 
ject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be: and they 
that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in 
the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you. But if any man hath not the Spirit of 
Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the 
body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because 
of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up 
Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up 
Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your 
mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you." 

Not only does the Spirit of God thus dwell in 
us if we are his, but we are taught in the following 
words that even our bodies are temples of the Holy 
Spirit; as Paul wrote to the people of Corinth, who 
had lately been heathen : — 

1 Cor. 6 : 19. "Or know ye not that your body is a temple 
of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from 
God." 

And we ought not to be surprised at this, 
although Campbell teaches us that we are not 
"to regard" the Spirit: for Jesus refuted Campbell- 
ism by telling us that God would give the Spirit to 
us, although we are "evil," if we would ask him : — 

Luke 11 : 13. "If ye then, being evil, know how to give 
good gifts unto your children, how much more shall (your) 
heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him." 

And we also know that even in the material 
creation the Spirit of God, long before a w T ord of 
the Bible was written, could "move upon the face of 
the waters" in bringing order out of chaos. And 
much more can the Spirit of God move upon the 
heart of a distant, lost prodigal, and help to establish 
order in the soul, in the place of moral wreckage; 



206 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

causing poverty and famine to awake the prodigal 
to his lost condition: for it is undeniable that God 
uses various instrumentalities, quickening their 
effectiveness by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, often 
producing great, even radical changes in the affec- 
tions, disposition, hearts and lives of men, even 
where they have no clear views of religious doctrine. 
In fact, it is not recorded that the Prodigal Son 
had received any message whatever from his father. 
And the knowledge he had of the doctrine of love, 
or conception of his father's forgiving disposition, 
had become so reversed by sin, that when he started 
to go back to his father, he only hoped to become 
as a hired servant. 

But the heavenly Father, as Jesus says, will 
"give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him," even 
though when asking they are "evil." 

But Campbell goes still further than I have so 
far stated (on this minor error) : for he limits the 
power of the Spirit of God, even for "moral 
influence," to the Word; the following being his 
outrageous language: — 

"All the converting power of the Holy Spirit is in the 
Word. All the motives, arguments, and persuasions of the 
Holy Spirit are found in the record. He uses no other in 
the work of conversions, or in the work of sanctification. 
'Sanctify them through thy truth.' 'The law of the Lord is 
perfect, converting the soul/ So far as moral influence in 
concerned there is none besides, none beyond this" (Camp- 
bell and Rice Debate, p. 644. The italics are Campbell's). 

Thus Campbell abolishes all moral influence of 
the Holy Spirit, except through the Word ; the Word 
translated by men so fallible that Campbell himself 
published a new translation. 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 207 

Did he claim that the Word of God as revealed 
in that translation was the only means available 
for the Spirit of God for the conversion and 
sanctification of sinners? Or was Campbell's trans- 
lation the only "moral influence" that could be 
exerted by the Spirit of God? If so, what became 
of the generations of English speaking people before 
Campbell was born? 

This is a very serious matter: for if Ihe former 
translations were wrong the Spirit of God had no 
correct means for "moral influence" till Campbell's 
translation appeared. And if Campbell's trans- 
lation is wrong, as we have shown, Campbell himself 
was hindering the operation of the Spirit of God; 
in one sense "sinning against the Holy Ghost," by 
making his translation mistakes. 

But Campbell argues for this minor error, by 
quoting from Jesus' prayer to his Father (John 
17:17), "Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is 
truth." 

But the very fact that Jesus prayed for the 
disciples to be sanctified in the truth, although they 
had the truth and the word in as great fulness and 
purity as ever given to men, proves uncertainty; 
that there was something further the Father might 
bestow; that their sanctification was yet a blessing 
to be prayed for, and not wholly a result of the 
Word already revealed. That is, there was some- 
thing yet within the power of God to bestow, con- 
nected with sanctification. Jesus did not pray for 
new or more arguments to be given the disciples, 
nor more Word. He evidently prayed the Father, 
because there was a consecration, or sanctification, 



208 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

that might be wrought in the hearts of men, in 
addition to any influence their minds might have 
received from the Word they had so far so freely 
enjoyed. 

Consequently, Campbell's doctrine that "in con- 
version and sanctiflcation, the Spirit of God operates 
only through the Word" (Campbell and Eice Debate, 
p. 611) is false. 

Even in Old Testament times the prophets 
taught a more affectionate and heavenly doctrine 
than that of Campbell: for the following is what 
Ezekiel said, when foretelling the blessings God 
intended for his children : — 

Ezekiel 36 : 26-27. "A new heart also will I give you, 
and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take 
away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you 
a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you." 

Also, Campbell's limitation of the activity of 
the Holy Spirit solely to the written Word is 
false, not only because it narrows and walls in God's 
liberty to convert and sanctify (just as Campbell's 
other error walls in God's liberty to forgive), but 
because it takes away from the gospel dispensation 
that glory, as the age of the manifestation of the 
Spirit's power, which the prophet Joel foretold, as 
Peter said : — 

Acts 2 : 17-18. "And it shall be in the last days, saith 
God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: and 
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy and your 
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream 
dreams: yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens 
in those days will I pour forth of my Spirit.'* 

In fact, with reverence toward the Word of God 
much greater than that of Campbell when he was 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 209 

sawing off whole books of the Bible, (Matthew, 
Mark, Luke, John and the whole Old Testament), 
I claim that it derives some of its power and 
influence in leading men to repentance and faith 
from the accompanying help of the Spirit, or the 
directing force of the Spirit: for the apostle Paul 
speaks of it as if it were an instrument of the Spirit, 
when he uses the following language: — 

Eph. 6 : 17. "And take the helmet of salvation, and the 
sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." 

So far is Campbell's doctrine that "in conver- 
sion and sanctification the Spirit operates only 
through the Word," from being true, that without 
the help of the Spirit, or some other divine aid, 
the Word itself sometimes may not be properly and 
fully understood. Notice the following Scriptures, 
implying such need: — 

Ps. 119 : 18. "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold 
wondrous things out of thy law." 

1 Cor. 2 : 14. "Now the natural man receiveth not the 
things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto 
him ; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually 
judged." 

Luke 24 : 32. "Was not our heart burning within us, while 
he spake to us in the way, while he opened to us the 
Scriptures?" 

If the two disciples going to Emmaus needed 
the help of Jesus to understand the Scriptures, 
possibly others may need more help than their own 
intellects can give them. Possibly a consciousness 
of this need impelled Campbell himself to send out 

a new translation of the Word And 

observe the need even for the apostles that night at 
Jerusalem, of whom we read the following : — 



210 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Luke 24 : 45. "Then opened he their mind, that they 
might understand the Scriptures." 

If the apostolic company, a body of brainy men, 
with whom Jesus himself had associated in Galilee, 
Samaria and Judea, needed again his help, men who 
were already called and instructed, how dare Camp- 
bell say that sinners of our own time, unconverted 
and depraved, are operated on by the Spirit "only 
through the Word?" 

Seeing that Jesus had told the apostles, his 
bosom companions for years, that it was necessary 
for him to send them the Comforter, the Spirit of 
truth, to bring to their remembrance, after he should 
depart, the things he had commanded them, does 
it not verge on profanity toward God for Campbell 
to maintain that the Holy Spirit now operates on 
depraved sinners' hearts only through the Word, a 
Word that Campbell so easily perverted by his 
translation ? 

It is plain that if this doctrine of Campbell is 
true, it is useless for Christians to pray for the 
conversion of sinners. The only thing to do is to 
give them more Bible. And all of Campbell's 
own philosophising, logic, editorials, sermons and 
debates were wasted. He should only have given 
more Bible to sinners, as well as other sectarians. 

Now asking the reader carefully to discern and 
decide whether Campbell "speaks only where the 
Bible speaks, and is silent where the Bible is silent," 
I here close my discussion of this shocking minor 
error by quoting three statements of his which 
evidently debar from the blessings of regeneration 
all infants, idiots, honest pagans, pious pedo- 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 211 

baptists, and other persons too destitute, too 
ignorant, or too stupid (in Campbell's opinion) to 
understand the testimony of the Word of God: — 

"Regeneration being the offspring of the Word of God 
believed, it is impossible that any one incapable of under- 
standing the fact, of believing the testimony, of exercising 
faith, of possessing moral feeling, and of corresponding ac- 
tion can be regenerated" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 
713). 

"Infants, idiots, deaf and dumb persons, innocent pa- 
gans, wherever they can be found, with all the pious pedo- 
baptists, we commend to the mercy of God" (The Christian 
System, p. 249). 

"Whatever is essential to regeneration in one case is 
essential in all cases" (Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 712). 



Another minor error of Campbell (although his 
followers do not all obey him in it) is the 
following : — 

That a salaried ministry is incorrect. 

The following is CampbelPs language: — 

"That any man is to be paid at all for preaching, i. e., 
making sermons and pronouncing them ; or that any man 
is to be hired for a stipulated sum to preach and pray, and 
expound Scripture, by the day, month, or year, I believe to 
be a relic of popery" (Christian Baptist, p. 231). 

"Every man who receives money for preaching the gospel, 
or for sermons, by the day, month, or year, is a hireling in 
the language of truth and soberness — whether he preaches 
out of his saddlebags, or from the immediate suggestions 
of the Holy Spirit" (Christian Baptist, p. 233). 

This doctrine of Campbell is opposed to that of 
Paul, as appears from the following Scriptures : — 

1 Tim. 5 : 18. "The laborer is worthy of his hire." 

2 Cor. 11 : 7-8. "Or did I commit a sin in abasing myself 
that ye might be exalted, because I preached to you the 



212 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

gospel of God for naught? I robbed other churches, taking 
wages of them that I might minister unto you." 

2 Cor. 12 : 13. "I myself was not a burden to you. For- 
give me this wrong." 

Campbell's doctrine is also opposed to the 
instruction of Christ himself, as appears from the 
following: — 

1 Cor. 9 : 14. "Even so did the Lord ordain that they 
that proclaim the gospel should live of the gospel." 

Luke 10 : 4-7. "Carry no purse for the laborer 

is worthy of his hire." 

It is astonishing in how many points Campbell 
labored to contradict the gospel. 



Another minor error of Campbellism is the 
following : — 

That there is no real call to the ministry. 

One of Campbell's many statements on this 

subject is as follows: — 

"When, then, I hear a modern preacher, either with or 
without his diploma in his pocket saying that he is an am- 
bassador of Christ, sent by God to preach the gospel, moved 
by the Holy Ghost to take upon him the work of the min- 
istry ; I ask him to work a miracle, or afford some divine at- 
testation of his being such a character. If he cannot do this, 
I mark him down as a knave or an enthusiast ; consequent- 
ly, an imposter, either intentionally or unintentionally ,, 
(Christian Baptist, p. 20). 

Some other statements of Campbell follow : — 

"But some, unable to resist the evidence of the preced- 
ing facts and reasons, will exclaim, What ! have we no men 
among us called and sent by God? Stop, my friend. What 
use have we for such men? Do we need any new message 
from the skies? No. Divine messages require divine mes- 
sengers," etc. (Christian Baptist, pp. 20-21). 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OF SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 213 

"In short, there is no need to have men among us pro- 
fessing to be 'called and sent by God' " (Christian Baptist, p. 
21). 

"In the meantime we conclude that one of those means 
used to exalt the clergy to dominion over the faith, over the 
consciences, and over the persons of men, by teaching the 
people to consider them as specially called and moved by 
the Holy Spirit, and sent to assume the office of ambassa- 
dors of Christ, or ministers of the Christian religion, is a 
scheme unwarranted by God, founded on pride, ignorance, 
ambition, and impiety; and, as such, ought to be opposed 
and exposed by all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ 
in sincerity" (Christian Baptist, p. 21). 

"It would be absurd and vain for the person possessing 
the knowledge of the New Testament, to say that he was 
moved by the Holy Spirit, or specially called by its opera- 
tions and sent by God to preach" (Christian Baptist, p. 21). 

When the reader considers these statements of 
Alexander Campbell, he will understand that Camp- 
bell himself was not called of God. This will help 
to prepare the reader for the still more dreadful 
impeachment of Campbell's doctrine, which I intend 
to make before closing this book. 

Kemember : — According to Campbell himself, 
Tie teas not called of God. 

But the true minister of Jesus Christ is called, 
or sent, of God. Without delaying to reason on the 
need of this, I merely quote some Scriptures, which 
are as convincing as the tricky reasonings of a man 
who admits that he was not called to the ministry : — 

Romans 10 : 13-15. "Whosoever shall call upon the name 
of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on 
him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they 
believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach ex- 
cept they be sent?" 

1 Cor. 1 : 21. "It was God's good pleasure through the 
foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe." 



214 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

2 Cor. 5 : 20. "We are ambassadors therefore on behalf 
of Christ, as though God were entreating by us : we beseech 
you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled to God." 

Acts 20 : 28. "Take heed to yourselves, and to all the 
flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to 
feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his 
own blood." 

Eph. 4 : 11. "And he gave some to be apostles ; and 
some, prophets ; some, evangelists ; and some, pastors and 
teachers." 

2 Tim. 1 : 11. "I was appointed a preacher and an apos- 
tle, and a teacher." 

Col. 4 : 17. "And say to Archippus, Take heed to the 
ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou 
fulfil it." 

Luke 10 : 2. "Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, 
that he send forth laborers into his harvest." (And Mat. 
9:37). 

Acts 20 : 24. "The ministry which I received from the 
Lord Jesus to testify the gospel of the grace of God." 

Acts 13 : 2. "The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barna- 
bas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them." 

All through the ages, even in Judaism as well 
as in Christianity, the principle of divine appoint- 
ment for religious ministration has been admitted 
by true teachers. And even those who were to 
minister in the lowly or routine functions of priest- 
hood w^ere designated by God; so that we read the 
following language in Holy Writ about it, notwith- 
standing Campbell: — 

Heb. 5 : 4. "And no man taketh the honor to himself, 
but when he is called of God, even as was Aaron." 

Men who assert that no one is called of God 
admit that they are not called, and should not have 
our respect: for they try to take honor to them- 
selves; and they will teach error. 



LEADS TO ADOPTION OP SUBSIDIARY ERRORS 215 

There are a few minor errors of Campbellism 
that I do not treat in this list, or discuss at length, 
because time and space are needed for more 
important questions; such minor errors being the 
following, and others like them in spirit : — 

That the Old Testament is of no authority; 

That women should not preach; 

That all that is required in any case to "be 
saved'' is required in every case: a manifest error, 
for the conditions of men differ, and the word "save" 
has different meanings. One is to "believe;" 
another "that endureth to the end, the same shall 
be saved" (Mat. 24: 13) ; and another was "delivered 
unto Satan" for a time for the "destruction of the 
flesh" for the spirit to "be saved in the day of the 
Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5). 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 

We now turn to three great subsidiary errors 
of Cainpbellism, which have a like effect, in some 
regards, to that of infidelity itself. One of these 
is the following: — 

That the faith, or belief, of the sinner is the 
same in hind, or nature, as that of the Christian; 
differing from it only in degree. 

Campbell's wording is as follows: — 

"Now be it known to all men, that, so soon as any 
one is convinced, or knows certainly, that God will forgive 
sinners all offenses, and accept of them through the media- 
tion of Jesus Christ, upon their submission to the govern- 
ment of the Messiah, then that person has the faith or 
belief which the gospel proclaims" (Christian Baptist, p. 
466). 

"Evidence alone produces faith ; or testimony is all that 
is necessary to faith" (Christian Baptist, p. 58). 

"No person can help believing when the evidence of 
truth arrests his attention" (Christian Baptist, p. 58). 

"Hence there is not an instance on record in the New 
Testament of any person inquiring of the Apostles what 
they meant when they proclaimed 'reformation toward God 
and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.' This is a striking 
proof that their hearers understood the Apostles as using 
this word in the common acceptation of their times ; as 
denoting the persuasion of the truth, or the conviction of 
the certainty, of what they proclaimed" (Christian Baptist, 
p. 466). 

"When the grand question concerning faith comes to 
be discussed, there can be only one faith, and that is the 
belief of history, or the belief of testimony oral or written" 
(Christian Baptist, p. 512). 

In another place, where in the connection of 
the remark he insinuates that "confidence" is a 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 217 

"change" or perversion of faith, he uses the follow- 
ing language: — 

"All the sons of men cannot show that there is any- 
other faith than the belief of facts, either written in the 
form of history, or orally delivered" (Christian Baptist, 
p. 529). 

In the following sentence he words his doctrine 
compactly : — 

"Faith then is just the belief or persuasion that the 
gospel is true" (Christian Baptist, p. 466). 

This doctrine of Campbell may be so offensive 
to many of my readers, who realize instantly how 
it annuls the heart difference between the sinner and 
the Christian, that you may think I misunderstand 
Campbell. If so, read the following language of 
his: — 

"Evidence alone produces faith, or is all that is neces- 
sary to faith, when speaking of the nature of faith. For 
faith, however it comes into existence, is no more than 
the belief of truth ; and it is evidence alone that ascertains 
and demonstrates what is truth" (Christian Baptist, p. 
253). 

"All controversies about the nature of faith, about the 
different kinds of modern faith, are either learned or 
unlearned nonsense, calculated to deceive and bewilder 
the superstitious multitudes that hang upon the lips of 
spiritual guides. The only, or grand question with every 
man is, What is fact, or truth? This ascertained, let there 
be no inquiries about how a man believes, or whether his 
faith be of the right kind" (Christian Baptist, p. 58). 

"Faith is the simple belief of testimony, or of the 
truth, and never can be more or less than that" (The 
Christian System, p. 56). 

My reader recognizes immediately that this is 
the faith of all sinners except skeptics. In a 
Christian land, who denies that the gospel is true, 
except infidels? 



218 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

But this error, reducing faith to a mere mental 
acceptance of evidence, or argument, leaves it with- 
out the warmth that was such a delight to the 
Savior. It leaves it without that confidence, reach- 
ing out beyond the evidence, that makes the child of 
tender years so precious to its mother, because it 
trusts her in matters she has never proved, or even 
stated, to it. 

In former years, a great ship was lying at her 
dock. The hatch was opened through the various 
decks, down to the dense darkness of the hold far 
below, and for some cause there was no lantern or 
other light below the topmost deck. The captain's 
daughter, a little girl of four or five years, was look- 
ing for him, and coming to the edge of the open 
hatch, looked down into the dense darkness, and 
called, 

"Papa, are you down there?" 

A voice came out of the depths, "Jump down 
here, Mary." 

"Is that you, papa?" 

Again the voice, "Jump down here, Mary." 

"Papa, will you catch me? I cannot see you; 
it is so dark down there." 

"Mary, I tell you to jump down here." 

"Papa, tell me that you will catch me; please, 
papa." 

"Mary, do not wait any more; jump down here." 

"I am coming, papa; catch me, catch me." 

And away she went into the darkness. That 
is faith. Of course, her father caught her; but he 
had not promised to; he had never demonstrated 
that "fact" to her. But her heart contained the 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 219 

"assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of 
things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). She had faith in 
her father, although he would not promise to catch 
her. 

Even a stranger in a city, if a good man, walk- 
ing in darkness on a lonely street, hearing the 
pattering footsteps of a lost little child, and then 
discerning its form coming to his side, if he should 
feel her little hand creeping into his, and her tiny 
fingers clutching and twining around his larger 
ones, would recognize her faith, would be touched by 
it, and would be moved to take care of her in the 
darkness; although he had never given her any 
"persuasive" evidence. The faith (that is, trust, 
or confidence) of the child would please him. It 
is this trust, this faith, this confidence, whatever 
may cause it, that saves the sinner, changing his 
nature and laying hold on the heart of God. The 
faith of the Prodigal Son, following his repentance 
of sin, was quickly met by his father's forgiveness. 
And the faith in, or trust in, Jesus, which secures 
remission of sins, may be based on information or 
knowledge which sometimes would not be sufficient 
in science. It is alluded to in the following 
passage : — 

Heb. 11:1. "Now faith is the substance (ground, or 
confidence) of things hoped for, the evidence of things 
not seen" (King James Version). 

''Now faith is the assurance (the giving substance to) 
of things hoped for, a conviction (test) of things not seen" 
(American Version). 

This faith, trust, confidence, usually is hased 
on knowledge of certain facts that have come to 
the sinner, which have convicted him of sin, leading 



220 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

to his repentance of sin, so that the heavenly 
element of faith in Christ, trust in God, easily 
follows. The broken, tender heart, in the spiritual 
darkness reaches out for the heavenly Savior, and 
is accepted. The sobbing, lost child, feels the 
mighty hand gently clasping its little fingers, and is 
saved. 

But this faith cannot exist in an unrepentant 
heart. Although the wandering child may know 
that Jesus is walking the streets, as long as the 
child does not repent of sin, he will avoid submission 
to Jesus, loving his sin, and will turn into dives and 
resorts where his affections lead him. 

Knowledge does not save; demonstration does 
not save; evidence does not save. These things 
only open the eyes to see the facts, and the Savior. 
Even the most scientific "persuasion that the gospel 
is true" does not save. James ridicules that kind 
of faith in the following language : — 

"Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the 
demons also believe, and shudder" (James 2:19). 

Intellectual belief does not save, however in- 
tense it may be. There must be tbe element of trust 
(faith in, or faith on, believing in, or believing on), 
to have effect in salvation. And that faith does 
save. It always saves ; it never fails. 

Please reserve the Campbellite objection that 
faith is the first thing in gospel order (which is an 
error shortly to be refuted), and let us look at some 
of the promises to faith, by which the reader may see 
that Campbell's doctrine that "faith is just the 
belief or persuasion that the gospel is true" is 
irreconcilable with the word of God: — 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 221 

John 6 : 40. "Ever one that beholdeth the Son, and 
believeth on him, should have eternal life; and I will 
raise him up at the last day." 

John 6 : 47. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that 
believeth hath eternal life." 

John 3 : 18. "He that believeth on him is not judged." 

Eph. 2 : 8. "For by grace have ye been saved through 
faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 
not of works, that no man should glory." 

Luke 7:50. "And he said unto the woman, Thy faith 
hath saved thee; go in peace." 

Luke 18 : 42. "And Jesus said unto him, Receive thy 
sight: thy faith hath made thee whole." 

Acts 14 : 27. God "had opened a door of faith unto 
the Gentiles." 

Gal. 3 : 24-25. "So that the law is become our tutor 
to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by 
faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under 
a tutor." 

Eph. 1 : 12-13. "In Christ : in whom ye also, having 

heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, 

in whom having also believed, ye were sealed with the 
Holy Spirit of promise." 

Rom. 5 : 1-2. "Being therefore justified by faith, 
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; 
through whom also we have had access by faith into this 
grace wherein we stand." 

Acts 13 : 38-39. "Through this man is proclaimed unto 
you remission of sins; and by him every one that believeth 
is justified from all things." 

These statements indicate that faith secures the 
remission of sins; and the faith that is right, the 
saving faith, must be more than a mere "belief that 
the gospel is true." Thousands of sinners believe 
that, but go on in their wickedness. That kind of 
faith is not the door into the kingdom. That kind 
of faith does not justify "from all sins." 

But true faith does. 

But how rebellious toward Jesus is that error 
that would deprive the Lord of the delight he had 
when men trusted him; when he would say, — 



222 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

"Be not faithless, but believing;" 

"O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" 

"Believest thou that I am able to do this?" 

"Be not afraid, only believe;" 

"Slow of heart to believe;" 

"The Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved 
me, and have believed that I came forth from the Father;" 

"Whosoever liveth and belie veth on me shall never die. 
Believest thou this?" 

All the way along the faith that saves, or that 
is effectual, or that changes the man, or that lays 
hold on God, is a faith that touches the heart; it is 
trust, or confidence in, or on, Jesus Christ. 

Rom. 10 : 10. "With the heart man belie veth unto 
righteousness." 

It is not a head belief, or a mental persuasion, 
or acknowledging evidence. Faith reaches the 
heart, or it is not Christian faith. The faith that 
does not reach the heart, the sinner's faith, is differ- 
ent in its nature. It is mere information, 
persuasion, or knowledge. 



It is possible that some reader may be puzzled 
with something of the foregoing presentation, 
because he has hitherto unconsciously absorbed 
another secondary error of Campbellism: — 

That the gospel order of experience in becoming 
a Christian is first, faith; second, repentance; and 
third, baptism. 

The following is the language of Alexander 
Campbell on this subject: — 

"In the natural order of the evangelical economy, the 
items stand thus: — 1. Faith; 2. Reformation; 3. Immersion; 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 223 

4. Remission of sins; 5. Holy Spirit; and 6. Eternal Life" 
(Christian Baptist, page 486). 

"In the evangelical order, faith is the first and capital 
item" (Christian Baptist, page 466). 

"The Apostles arrange the gospel thus: — 1st. Faith. 2d. 
Repentance. 3d. Immersion. 4th. Remission of sins. 5th, 
The Holy Spirit. And 6th. Eternal Life. But sectarians 
have broken up the regular arrangement" (Christian Bap- 
tist, p. 607). 

"Faith or regeneration must be prior — a simultaneous 
existence is not supposable. With me, faith is first, and 
repentance, or a change of heart, next in the order of things 
— in the order of nature and causation" (Campbell and 
Rice Debate, p. 677). 

"Now be it known to all men, that, so soon as any 
one is convinced, or knows certainly, that God will forgive 
sinners all offenses, and accept of them through the media- 
tion of Jesus Christ, upon their submission to the govern- 
ment of the Messiah, then that person has the faith or 
belief which the gospel proclaims ; and upon the personal 
application of that individual for pardon and acceptance, 
then through immersion into the name of the Lord Jesus, 
remission of sins is granted" (Christian Baptist, p. 466). 

(In this last quotation the reader sees that 
Campbell omits repentance, substituting for that 
heart experience an act: "personal application for 
pardon;" justifying my strictures of Campbellism 
on this point when discussing Titus 3:5; and also 
justifying my strictures of what Campbell calls his 
"guarantee." And the theoretical omission of 
repentance leads to its practical omission; and 
unrepentant sinners are baptized, addicted to strife, 
without sorrow for sin, and loving iniquity.) 

But Campbell was wrong as to the order. 

This is certain, both from (1) the nature of the 
matter, and (2) from the Bible statements. 

1. As to the nature of the matter, observe that 
it leaves believers unsaved; which contradicts the 
Scriptures I have quoted concerning the preceding 



224 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

error Also, that faith is before repent- 
ance, is improper in experience: for otherwise a man 
might have faith without repentance ; and invariably 
would, if faith were first. And he might have 
faith and yet never repent. This will be plain, 
when you recall what I have shown ; that Campbell 
did not know anything about the nature of 
Christian faith. 

But the Campbellite argues that a man cannot 
repent before he believes that he is a sinner, before 
he believes that God is angry with sin, and before 
he believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior. 

Certainly he must believe those statements. 
But to argue that a belief of such propositions is 
faith, is error. To believe that Columbus discov- 
ered America is not faith. To believe that Lincoln 
freed the slaves is not faith. For a defaulter to 
believe that he embezzled money of a corporation 
is not faith. For a hearer in a congregation to 
believe the statements of the preacher is not faith; 
even though such statements may lead to repentance, 
which leads to faith. 

For the belief that a man has before repentance 
(in believing something), is not a work of the heart, 
or affections; that is, not a matter of spiritual life. 
For God's word is true: that "with the heart man 
believeth unto righteousness." And what a man 
believes before repentance is intellectual merely; 
what he believes, or knows, in common with other 
hearers; or his opinions concerning certain facts. 
It is not faith ; it is persuasion, or opinion, or infor- 
mation, or knowledge. The demons have it "and 
shudder." The belief which precedes repentance, 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 225 

which belief the demons have, is a dead thing as to 
complying with Christ's command to "believe," or 
any other command. The faith commanded by 
Christ is that which (Gal. 5:6) "works through 
love." But the faith which the unrepentant sinner 
has is not the faith which leads to working. The 
sinner's faith is more like opinion, or knowledge, 
or accepting proof mentally. 

Repentance is first, because it is impossible to 
cease sinning before being sorry for sin. 

But the Campbellite argues that because it is 
stated (Heb. 11:6) that "without faith it is 
impossible to be well-pleasing" (unto God), that 

faith must precede repentance But the 

argument ignores the general bearing of the chapter, 
where the writer is speaking of the continuing faith 
of a long line of holy ancient heroes, who "all died 
in faith ;" and he had not the least reference to the 
experience of the sinner, or the remission of his 

sins And the Campbellite contention 

sets aside not only the general bearing of the 
chapter, but also the immediate connection of Heb. 
11 : 6, which has reference to Enoch, supposed to 
have been one of the best men of the earth, who 
had the testimony that he had walked with God, 
was well-pleasing unto God, and because of his per- 
fect life was translated that he should not see death. 
. ... To pervert the description of the sinless 
Enoch and liken it to the experience of the sinner in 
coming to Christ, is illustrative of the generally 
debauching influence of Campbellite logic. 

But if it yet be argued that the saying in Heb. 
11 : 6 is equally appropriate to the unrepentant 



226 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

sinner and to the worthies of whom Paul was 
writing, we might also add a number of other graces 
to the list: for without hope it is impossible to 
please God ; and without love, without prayerfulness, 
without industry, without courage, without faithful- 
ness, it is impossible to please God; and we would 
soon attribute to the unrepentant sinner Christian 
virtues in a fulness that would reduce alJ analysis 
of experience to a confusion that would make 
reasoning impracticable. Let Heb. 11 : 6 stand in 
its own connection. 

Another Scripture quoted is that of Paul (Rom. 
14:23), "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin," where 

he is speaking of eating meats But he is 

not speaking of the justification of the sinner at all. 
He is writing about the conduct of the brethren in 
eating and drinking; and he advises them that if 
they doubt the correctness of their own conduct in 
eating meats which will cause a brother to offend, 
their very doubt is condemnation : "He that doubteth 
is condemned if he eat, because he eateth not of 

faith : and whatsoever is not of faith is sin." 

Paul would not teach the absurd doctrine, however, 
that a man without faith would sin in going to 
church, or properly behaving himself in the congre- 
gation, or in listening honestly to the preaching, 
simply because he had no faith in its correctness. 

2. But the Scriptures can be relied on 
as having the order of experiences right. And the 
following are some of the passages suggesting the 
true order in becoming a Christian. I quote a 
number, where one or the other, or both, of the 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 227 

experiences of repentance and faith are mentioned 
in such a way as to indicate the true order : — 

Mark 1 : 15. "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom 
of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe in the gospel." 

Acts 20 : 21. "Testifying both to Jews and to Greeks 
repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus 
Christ." 

Seeing that the Bible always has repentance 
and faith in this order, why do we hear the Camp- 
bellite mumbling so much about "speaking where 
the Bible speaks, and being silent where the Bible 
is silent?" Why does he prate so much about a 
"restoration of primitive Christianity" and the 
"ancient order?" It is evident that he adulterates 
"primitive Christianity" and reverses "ancient 
order." 

From the two passages quoted above it is 
evident that the Campbellite theory makes the Bible 
wording unphilosophical. But must the expressions 
of Jesus and Paul yield to Campbellite philosophy? 
Shall we represent Jesus as ignorant of the deep 
things of his own religion? If Campbell's theory 
is true, why is there not one passage somewhere in 
the Bible that puts faith before repentance? 

But let us go on with the Scripture quotations 
showing the opinion of the Bible writers concerning 
the true order of repentance and faith : — 

Mat. 21 : 32. "And ye, when ye saw it, did not even 
repent yourselves afterward that ye might believe him." 

Acts 3 : 19. "Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that 
your sins may be blotted out." 

Heb. 6 : 1-2. "Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the 
first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; 
not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead 
works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of bap- 
tisms, and of laying on of hands," etc. 



228 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

In that last passage, it would seem that the 
writer had in view some of the very errors of Camp- 
bellism we have been treating. He speaks of the 
"foundation of repentance/' which is correct, in the 
nature of things. Then follows "faith toward God." 
That is natural. The reverse order w r ould be 
unnatural and illogical: for the foundation would 
have been laid before the sinner had repented. "The 
foundation" would have been laid in the marshes 
and quicksands of sin; on what the apostle calls 
"dead works." That is a rotten piling, and would 
be a bad support for the building of Christian 
character, or Christian living. 

How could the man have proper faith while he 
had not repented? while his heart was not sorry for 
his dishonesty? while he did not grieve for his past 
profanity? while he had no regret for his past 
adulteries ? 

How could a sinner have faith in God while 
still unrepentant, "in the gall of bitterness and in 
the bond of iniquity." Repentance only can soften 
that bond. The gall of bitterness can be sweetened 
only by the briny tears of sorrow for sin. In that 
softened heart, a fallow ground broken up by the 
plow of repentance, the true faith toward God may 
germinate and produce life and fruits, one of which 
may be baptism. 

The apostle is right: the foundation is "repent- 
ance from dead works;" and faith toward God 
follows. 

Repentance begins the preparation of the heart 
for religious experience; it opens the heart for the 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OP CAMPBELLISM 229 

first light from heaven. It clears away the trash, 
that lies in the way of faith. It is not sorrow 
alone: for there was Judas. It is not conformity 
alone : for there was Simon Magus, who was still in 
the "gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity." It is 
not a weeping inactivity: for Peter wept bitterly, 
still later needing instruction from Jesus before 
feeding the lambs. Repentance is sorrow and con- 
fession ; sorrow and reparation. It is a state which 
God mercifully and graciously assists us to culti- 
vate. It is denied to the finally fallen, who have 
sorrow, but no softening of the heart, no conversion. 

True repentance is not procured especially by 
hope of reward, or remission ; nor is it the effect of 
fear especially. If a sinner repents (in appear- 
ance) to avoid punishment, hypocrisy follows. 

Repentance comes from a conviction and sense 
of guilt, which in such a sorrowful state makes sin 
seem odious and fills the soul with grief. But with 
true repentance we feel a sense of change, we pray 
boldly for pardon, and gain a sense of innocence. 

Repentance removes angry passions, opens the 
heart to hope, and lets in faith, which causes good 
works. 

That repentance is the foundation, notice the 
following additional passages, where repentance is 
named without the mention of faith, but with other 
things in such order or emphasis that it is apparent 
that the speakers or writers never used the Camp- 
bell phrasing (faith and repentance), but had the 
common conception prevailing in Bible times, that 
repentance was the beginning, or "foundation," of 
Christian experience: — 



230 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Mat. 4 : 17. "Repent ye ; for the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand." 

Mat. 21 : 29. "Afterward he repented himself, and 
went." 

Luke 24 : 47. "And that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, 
beginning from Jerusalem." 

Acts 5 : 31. "Him did God exalt with his right hand 
to be a Prince and a Savior, to give repentance to Israel, 
and remission of sins." 

2 Tim. 2 : 25. "Correcting them that oppose them- 
selves ; if peradventure God may give them repentance 
unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover 
themselves out of the snare of the devil." 

Now why did Campbell contradict the Bible, 
making faith a mere mental acceptance of evidence, 

and postponing repentance till after faith? 

Because his doctrine annuls those Christian graces, 
making salvation not a matter of worthiness, but of 
commerce; trade. Campbell puts God behind a 
banker's window, to wait there till the customer 
comes with his legal tender for the remission of 
sins; that is, immersion. All that the Lord can 
do is to ask the question, through the mouth of the 
preacher, Do you believe that Jesus is the Son of 
God? The sinner says, I do. That indorses the 
check, and remission has to be passed over. 

That I do not misrepresent Campbell in this 
unfavorable statement based on the logic of his 
system, and that he was himself vaguely conscious 
of its mercenary nature, will be plain to the reader 
on examining the following language of Campbell 
himself, where he clothes his system with religious, 
rather than commercial terms: — 

"Man desires, and God promises, an assurance of 
pardon. If anything ought to be secured, this ought. If 
any covenant ought to be sealed, this most certainly has 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OP CAMPBELLISM 231 

superlative claims. A covenant which involves one's 
present peace and his eternal destiny, ought to be made 
sure; solemnized and sealed in the most authoritative, 
formal, and sensible manner. For this, probably, among 
other sublime reasons, are we to be baptized into the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" 
(Campbell and Rice Debate, p. 534). 

And why, in this whole negotiation has there 
been no investigation concerning repentance? Why 
has there been no anxiety on the part of preacher 
or convert as to the candidate's sorrow for sin? 
Why does prayer by, or for, the sinner, supposed 
to be coming to God, play so insignificant a part 
in the transaction? 

Because the whole business has been business. 
It has not been a matter of heart religion at all. It 
has not been a matter of birth of the Spirit. 
Even the faith has been a mere intellectual agree- 
ment that Jesus is the Son of God: a belief of the 
head, and not of the heart. 

And Campbell sets aside the new covenant, the 
"new covenant," with a brazen effrontery that does 
not hesitate to annul repentance, substituting 
reformation for it. (See the discussion on Titus 
3 : 5, and the other passages usually quoted by 
Campbellites). 



And this leads us to state another subsidiary 
error of Campbellism: — 

That the repentance commanded in the Bible is 
correctly represented by the tvord "reformation" 

As Campbell reduces faith to a mere persuasion 
as to evidence, an intellectual process, he reduces 



232 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

repentance to mere change of conduct; thus in both 
these experiences "taking the heart out of them," 
the warmth, the feeling, the spirituality: for the 
following is Campbell's own statement of his 
position on this point, containing his admission that 
repentance is "generally accompanied with sorrow 
for the past ;" which shows conclusively that he did 
not regard "sorrow" as a necessary element of 
repentance; sometimes not even accompanying 
repentance; repentance being merely reformation: — 

1 'Repentance denotes a mere change of mind, generally 
accompanied with sorrow for the past; not necessarily, 
however, implying a reformation. But the term reforma- 
tion includes not merely a change of mind, but a change of 
ttfe" (Christian Baptist, p. 466). 

And his purpose is also plainly disclosed by the 
way he translates the Scriptures, (see the discussion 
on Titus 3:5), putting the word reform for the 
word repent; doing away with that most painful 
of all experiences in coming to Christ: repentance. 
It does away with "tears;" it abolishes the "fear 
and trembling" spoken of in the Bible; it annuls 
anxiety about one's guilt; it points not to God who 
so "loved the world that he gave his only begotten 
Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not 

perish," it points not to this God, but 

points to the water; it cancels prayer for forgive- 
ness; it eliminates the cry of the sinner, "What 
must I do to be saved?" it stops the mouth of the 
Prodigal, "Father, I have sinned, I am no more 
worthy to be called thy son." All the terrible 
anguish of sorrow for sin, those terrible lashings of 
conscience for violating right, all that terrible 
humiliation that can only cry, "God be merciful to 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 233 

. . . . all such experiences 
disappear as if by magic by the suggestion to 
"reform," vaguely sandwiched in between accepting 
the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God and 
appointing the date for baptism. 

It is the same disposition as that disclosed by 
another school of theologians, the Roman Catholics, 
who substitute in the Bible the phrase "do penance" 
for the word "repent" in many places. But I do 
not believe that the Roman Catholics in actual 
practice squelch repentance as successfully as the 
followers of Campbell: for the priest, to whom the 
penitent makes confession, by the laws of his church 
is directed to determine the real penitence of the 
sinner, before granting him absolution. Whereas, 
the genuine follower of Campbell usually merely 
asks the simple question, Do you believe that Jesus 
is the Son of God? The next practical question 
is determining the time, or date, for baptizing. 
And there is little investigation concerning peni- 
tence. To the candidate, penitence is hardly as 
important as his laundry bill. 

The point of this peculiarity of these theo- 
logians is that they both teach remission by works. 
Their religious philosophy is absolutely identical in 
the emphasized issue. The Campbellite teaches 
remission by baptism. The Roman Catholic teaches 
remission by "doing penance." The sinner in both 
cases depends on the priest, or preacher. The 
Roman Catholic is the more candid of the two, 
however; openly claiming for his priest the office of 
granting absolution of sins. In the case of the 
Campbellite, the preacher only assures the sinner 



234 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

that he cannot receive remission unless immersed; 
which equally requires the interposition of some 
man between the penitent and God. But the human 
mediator is not emphasized. The religious 
philosophy of both is the same : salvation by works. 

But let us now see how they treat the experience 
of repentance, by the way they substitute something 
else for repentance in their translations. In order 
to make this vivid I will first quote the American 
translation of a given passage, then Alexander 
Campbell's translation, and then the Roman 
Catholic (Douay) translation of the same pas- 



( American) Acts 8:22. "Repent therefore of this thy 
wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of 
thy heart shall be forgiven thee." 

(Campbell) "Reform, therefore, from this your wick- 
edness; and beg of God, if indeed the thought of your 
heart may be forgiven you." 

(Roman Catholic) "Do penance therefore from this 
thy wickedness: and pray to God, if perhaps this thought 
of thy heart may be forgiven thee." 

(American) Acts 17:30. "The times of ignorance 
therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men 
that they should all everywhere repent." 

(Campbell) "For though God overlooked the times of 
ignorance, he now makes proclamation to all men, every- 
where, to reform." 

(Roman Catholic) "And God indeed having winked 
at the times of this ignorance now declareth unto men, 
that all should everywhere do penance." 

(American) Acts 26:20. (Paul) "declared both to 
them of Damascus first, and at Jerusalem, and throughout 
all the country of Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they 
should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of 
repentance." 

(Campbell) (Paul) "declared, first to them at 
Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and through all the 
country of Judea; and then to the Gentiles, that they 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 235 

should reform, and return to God, performing deeds worthy 
of reformation." 

(Roman Catholic) "But to them first that are at 
Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and unto all the country of 
Judea, and to the Gentiles did I preach, that they should 
do penance, and turn to God, doing work worthy of penance.'' 

(American) Mat. 3:2. "Repent ye; for the kingdom 
of heaven is at hand." 

(Campbell) "Reform, for the Reign of Heaven 
approaches." 

(Roman Catholic) "And saying: Do penance: for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand." 

(American) Luke 17:3. "Take heed to yourselves: 
if thy brother sin, rebuke him : and if he repent, forgive 
him." 

(Campbell) "Take heed to yourselves: if your brother 
trespass against you, rebuke him ; and if he reform, forgive 
him." 

(Roman Catholic) "Take heed to yourselves. If thy 
brother sin against thee, reprove him: and if he do 
penance, forgive him." 

Undoubtedly I might quote many more passages 
illustrating their resemblances in doing away with 
repentance, and making salvation of the sinner 
depend on action, deeds, works. But these are 
sufficient. (See the discussion on Titus 3:5). 

Thus Campbellism rebels, not only against 
King Jesus, by depriving him of his crown while 
he was with his earthly subjects; not only does it 
rebel against the reign of love in God's heart, by 
taking away from him the privilege of forgiving a 
sinner outright when he repents and before he can 
be baptized ; not only does it rebel against the Spirit 
of God by forbidding the washing of regeneration 
till the preacher can lead the sinner into the water : 
. . . . but it rebels against the experiences of 
repentance and faith; and is equally offensive 



236 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

toward the nature of man and his relation to 
spiritual religion. 

That I am correct in this presentation of Camp- 
bellism will appear not only from the logic of the 
theory, but from the following language of Camp- 
bell himself concerning the admission of the sinner 
into the kingdom (when you remember that he puts 
repentance after faith in his "gospel order") : — 

"When any person desired admission into the kingdom, 
he was only asked what he thought of the king. 'Do you 
believe in your heart that Jesus of Nazareth is ,the 
Messiah, the Lord of all/ was the whole amount of the 
apostolic requirement. If the candidate for admission 
replied in the affirmative — if he declared his hearty con- 
viction of this fact — no other interrogation was proposed. 
They took him on his solemn declaration of this belief, 
whether Jew or Gentile, without a single demur. He was 
forthwith naturalized, and formally declared to be a 
citizen of the kingdom of Messiah. In the act of natural- 
ization which was then performed by means of water, 
he abjured or renounced spiritual allegiance to any other 
prince, potentate, pontiff, or prophet, than Jesus the Lord" 
(Christian Baptist, p. 140). 

"We are now speaking of the constitutional admission 
of citizens into the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and not of 
anything isubsequent thereto. The declaration of the 
belief of one fact, expressed in one plain proposition, and 
the one act of naturalization, constituted a free citizen of 
this kingdom ,, (Christian Baptist, p. 140). 

"There is no Scriptural authority for calling a change 
of heart, the new birth, or regeneration' ' (Campbell and 
Rice Debate, p. 545). 

Thus Campbell ignores, or eliminates, repent- 
ance, although his theory reduces repentance to 
reformation. Then he goes on, in the connection 
of a part of what I have quoted, to ridicule efforts 
of spiritual Christians, when receiving converts, to 
determine whether they have experienced a change 
of heart; his own theory being suited to receiving 
into membership the unconverted. He has little 



GREAT SUBSIDIARY ERRORS OF CAMPBELLISM 237 

interest in conversion. The pressure is on a mental 
theological proposition and a physical action. But 
the most convenient word to skip in reformation 
is conversion. The most convenient word to skip 
in conversion is repentance. And the most con- 
venient word to skip in repentance is sorrow for sin. 

But to argue that repentance is reformation, 
or a change of conduct, and that baptism is the first 
act, and yet that repentance precedes baptism, is 
contradiction. 

This doctrine of Campbell thus annuls conver- 
sion. It takes the meaning out of such Scriptures 
as the following: — 

Mat. 18 : 3. "Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, 
and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter 
into the kingdom of heaven. " 

Ezekiel 36 : 26. "A new heart also will I give you, and 
a new spirit will I put within you." 

2 Cor. 5 : 17. "Wherefore if any man is in Christ, 
(he is) a new creature." 

Gal. 6 : 15. "For neither is circumcision anything, nor 
uncircumcision, but a new creature." 

1 John 4 : 7. "Every one that loveth is begotten of 
God." 

1 Peter 1 : 23. "Having been begotten again, not of 
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, through the word 
of God." 

Let me quote Campbell's doctrine still further, 
though so different from the foregoing passages: — 

"In receiving members or citizens into the kingdom, 
or in naturalizing foreigners, it appeared in our last essay, 
that nothing was required of them but an acknowledgment 
of the word or testimony of the witnesses concerning the 
King, Jesus of Nazareth. A hearty declaration, or con- 
fession with their lips, that they believed in their hearts, 
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah, the Son of the 



238 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

living God, the King and Lord of all, qualified them as 
applicants for naturalization. In the act of immersion 
into this name, they renounced every other Messiah, Lord, 
King, or Savior ; they put off their former religion, and 
renounced every religious obligation to any other person 
or authority, and put on Jesus, as their Lord and King" 
(Christian Baptist, pp. 158-159). 



SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF CAMPBELLISM 

It is easily seen that this whole scheme is 
adapted to forming a sect of professors of religion, 
of unrepentant sinners, arguing theology, but devoid 
of the Spirit of God. If it were not for the influ- 
ence of the Bible where the errors of Campbellism 
are preached, a sect would have been formed of 
controversialists, emphasizing immersion in many 
discourses, more sectarian than Roman Catholics, 
and less conscientious (except as to religious forms) 
than non-professors. They would spend their time 
in winning people from other denominations, who, 
when won, would be less Christian than before. And 
pedo-baptists when proselyted would be immersed 
and immediately feel the "holier than thou" spirit 
as to their late brethren, regarding them as unsaved. 
Thus immersion would make them worse, instead of 
better. Were it not that common honesty hinders 
such fraud, they would take names that would 
attract members from other religious bodies, and 
confuse denominational issues. They would talk 
of union, and promote division. They would go 
into a neighborhood where they were unknown, 
preach on Christian union, on the love of God, and 
how to destroy sectarianism; professing liberty of 
thought, for the sake of making proselytes. If it 
were not for their reverence for the Bible, they 
would preach on how to "cTivide the Word of God ;" 
and divide it in such a way that most of it would 
be of no authority. Were it not for the influence of 



240 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

the Spirit of God, they would lower the standard of 
the gospel to a carnal philosophy, and would find 
some hike-warm church-members, or quarrelsome 
professors, in the neighborhood, or some non- 
professors, or some disaffected family willing to 
be immersed in order to attract attention. Others 
would be deceived by the quick and easy way to 
"pardon," and a church would be formed, ready to 
capture a meeting-house from some congregation 
disliking controversy, and which would retire in 
order to avoid strife. Were it not for the Spirit of 
God, the intruders would break up the churches, if 
they could not rule them, or establish opposition 
forts, open heaven only to the immersed, and talk 
much about a restoration of New Testament Chris- 
tianity, but which would be a vain sophistry sapping 
the springs of spirituality, in which their opinions 
would be quoted as Scripture, and other denomina- 
tions called Babylon. Like wolves seizing lambs, 
or hawks seizing doves, they would grasp the prop- 
erty of meek and loving Christians, who would 
not quarrel. And a great sect of such dogmatic 
bandits would grow, did not the influence of the 
Bible operate on human hearts, preventing this 
disaster, and leading some of those who adopt the 
theory to shrink (on account of their Christian 
spirit) from growing and developing in the way the 
theory naturally points. That the propagation of 
Campbellism has not resulted in the formation of 
such a sect, professing to have a Bible position, but 
really a sectarian denomination, is due solely to the 
fact that many sinners did repent, and that God 
forgave their sins, notwithstanding the theory they 



SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF CAMPBELL1SM 241 

thought they believed. These doctrines of Camp- 
bellism, were it not for the spirit of Jesus, would 
have made a denomination of ministers who would 
visit the unimmersed sick with much hesitation, 
unless there would be prospect of immersing them. 
It would seal the lips against offering comfort in 
the dying hour. It would weaken the faith of the 
ministers in the efficacy of prayer, even their own 
prayers; and they would come to question even the 
propriety of praying for the unimmersed. 

The doctrines of Campbellism, were it not for 
ordinary human honesty, would have created a 
denomination professing to have no creed but the 
Bible, but deceiving thousands with an arbitrary 
interpretation, to which ministers, laymen and 
missionaries must submit. They would have pro- 
fessed to make Christian character their only test 
of fellowship, again deceiving thousands. In some 
places they would begin their work by professing 
that there was no difference between them and some 
other body, thus to gain access to the churches with 
a view to splitting them. 

Were it not for the truth of the Bible, the influ- 
ence of the Spirit of God, and the general honesty of 
those to whom Campbellism is preached, it would 
cause the formation of a sect of baptized sinners, 
as much worse than other denominations as those 
nations of Europe, Italy and Spain, where all the 
population are "baptized" in order to remission of 
sin, are worse than other nations, much of the time 
engaged in cursing each other or the citizens of other 
nations; like the Pope, shutting the kingdom of 
heaven against those rejecting his doctrine of the 



242 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

true process of securing the absolution of sins. For 
it is not known that baptism ever changed the charac- 
ter of a sinner; and a man vile in heart can easily 
admit that Jesus is the Son of God, reform, and be 
baptized in water. 

Were it not that men studying the Bible come 
to love its spirit more than that of Alexander Camp- 
bell, by this time (1913) a denomination of fighters 
would have come into being, w T ith as proud, as 
pompous, and as dictatorial a spirit as ever marked 
a pope, not only capable of using severe language 
against other denominations, but even against each 
other; and only their sweet Christian spirit would 
have prevented their using language about each 
other, w r hich I find referred to and condemned in a 
religious paper, the Christian Standard, of July 1st, 
1911; the closing passage of which I quote, as 
follows : — 

"From the above cluster of sweet-spirited Christian 
protests we have taken the trouble to glean a few 
descriptive words and expressions which lack nothing in 
vigor. Our list runs : 'Narrow,' 'bigoted,' 'mock sincerity,' 
'hypocritical loyalty,' 'venomousness,' 'stupidity,' 'iniquity 
so gross,' 'self-appointed dictator,' 'coercing,' 'browbeating,' 
'bullying,' 'bludgeoned,' 'bulldoze,' 'captious,' 'reactionary,' 
'prince of disrupters, 'demoralizing,' 'destructive,' 'the 
Standard Czar,' 'Standard misrepresentations,' 'policy of 
threats and suspicion,' 'religion for revenue only,' 'tyran- 
nical,' 'half anti and half reactionary,' 'sinister.' Twenty- 
five of them in all — and a juicy, odoriferous bunch it is. 
We challenge Bro. Idleman to produce anything comparable 
to this in quantity or kind from the pages of the Standard. 
We deal with principles, not personalities. Those who 
most loudly accuse us are themselves the guilty ones. If 
we wanted a man flogged for fighting, cursed for swearing, 
or executed for advocating capital punishment, we would 
turn him over to the Campbell Institute crowd and 
nominate Bro. Idleman as administrator-in-chief — the 
culprit would not fail of full punishment" (Christian 
Standard, July 1, 1911). 



SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF CAMPBELLISM 243 

The spirit of Campbellism naturally leads to 
the writing and uttering of such sayings as I have 
quoted above; just as the spirit of other so-called 
religions that obscure, or deride, or annul the 
repentance of the sinner when coming to God. And 
it is only because the writers and speakers named 
in that one issue, July 1st, 1911, had not fully 
become Campbellites, that they did not have the 
spirit of the words they used: for such sayings are 
the natural effect of absorbing the philosophy and 
spirit of Campbellism. Many true followers of 
Jesus suppose they believe Campbellism, while yet 
they have none of its spirit. That fact prevents 
greater disaster to the cause of Christ. 

And were it not that the followers of Jesus, 
of every name and sect, if studying the Bible rever- 
ently, yield to the sweet spirit of Christ, such say- 
ings as follow, written by editors trained in Camp- 
bellism, and published by the same editors in 
another issue, on the subject of the long quotations 
above, would emphatically show the spiritual effect 
of the doctrine: — 

"Now be it known to these brethren beloved, that the 
'policy of controversy,' as they term it, is the policy that 
the Savior himself inaugurated in dealing with the scribes 
and Pharisees and gainsayers of his day ; the policy 
perpetuated by the apostles, and the policy which has been 
the inevitable accompaniment of every forward step in 
human progress. Let us cite them to those controver- 
sialists, the Major and the Minor Prophets, and all the great 
teachers of the world. The readers of the Standard have 
been accustomed to render the highest honor to the 
champions of the faith, and to hold in special contempt 
those who, professing to be soldiers of the cross, never 
strike a blow in its behalf." 

"Moreover, our readers have not failed to note that 
those who are loudest in wholesale denunciation of contro- 
versy, are members of that lovely guild who are seeking 



244 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

to carry their ends by secret society methods — helping 
one another into the most lucrative pastorates and college 
chairs and editorial seats by close organization among 
themselves, and spreading their destructive doctrine, while 
decrying all public exposure of it. The readers know that, 
through the exposure of Bro. McGarvey and the Standard, 
this crew have been driven, one by one, from points of 
vantage in our colleges, in our papers, and very largely 
in our pulpits; and that this good work has been accom- 
plished by the very controversy which they are pleased to 
denounce as 'unworthy and unchristian.' Those who so 
denounce it put themselves in sorry company" (Christian 
Standard, July 22, 1911, p. 1178). 

And the following: — 

"Those mythical 'missionaries' who were hungering 
and thirsting for a compromise on baptism in the foreign 
field — they are strangely slow in putting in appearance, 
when a manly declaration of their convictions would seem 
to be imperative. Those fit to serve in the foreign field 
should have the courage of their convictions. We are not 
ready to believe that our missionaries are of that stripe. 
We have all along had our suspicions that the quotations 
in the name of our missionary forces were from 'mission- 
aries' who have not yet seen the foreign field. This 
ominous silence confirms it" (Christian Standard, July 22, 
1911, p. 13). 

Only^T3ible study and gaining its spirit have 
prevented the many words quoted above, and the 
deeds referred to, from being the natural effect on 
its victims of Campbellite doctrine. 

The reason why there is no denomination in 
evangelical Protestantism whose whole body is 
marked by the spirit of the foregoing quotations is, 
that Christianity does not lead to the doctrines of 
Campbellism, nor its disposition. 

Christ in the judgment day will not say to those 
on the right hand, "Come, ye blessed of my Father, 
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the 
foundation of the world," for ye were immersed. 
No, indeed ; he will not say anything like that. But 



SPIRITUAL EFFECT OF CAMPBELLISM 245 

to those who have rejected some of his followers 
from fellowship here, he may say, "Inasmuch as ye 
did it unto one of these my brethren, even these 
least, ye did it unto me" (Mat. 25:40). And he 
may recall to memory the words he spoke when on 
earth, "He that rejecteth me, and receive th not my 
saying, hath one that judgeth him : the word that I 
spake, the same shall judge him in the last day" 
(John 12:48). And, as proving to them that his 
attitude in the judgment day (that he does not make 
immersion the test of discipleship) is the same 
position that he occupied when on earth, he may 
further recall to them his words spoken when he 
was in Judea, "By this shall all men know that ye 
are my disciples, if ye have love one for another" 
(John 13:35). 

And when the myriads of the immersed and the 
unimmersed standing on the right hand hear those 
words of affection, they may burst forth in the well 
known chorus, "We know that we have passed out 
of death into life, because we love the brethren" (1 
John 3:14): for u Love therefore is the fulfilling 
of the law" (Eomans 13:10). 



MINOR INCONSISTENCIES 

Beside secondary, but necessary, errors of 
Campbellism, there are minor inconsistencies, which 
I do not take time to discuss, but mention two as 
illustrative : — 

That there is a "'birth of water/' but nothing 
in our day that can be correctly named a "birth of 
Spirit/' 

That infants may be saved, though not 
immersed. 

Although having argued that unless one be 
"born of water," (which Campbell erroneously 
claims to mean immersed) , he cannot enter the king- 
dom of God (basing the doctrine on John 3:5), 
Campbell admits the salvation of infants in the 
following language : — 

"If baptism be connected with the remission of sins, 
infants require it not ; for they have no sins to be remitted*' 
(Christian Baptist, p. 439). 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELLIS3I 

But I must refer, in another form, to the cruelty 
of Campbellism. For it is worse, as to this feature, 
than I have yet pointed out in such a way as to 
attract appropriate attention. Because, according 
to Campbellism, it is not only necessary to be 
immersed, if one wishes to have his sins forgiven, 
or to be saved, but he must be immersed in order to 
the remission of his sins. That is, the purpose, 
or object, in being immersed, must be remission. 

A mistake about the purpose of the ordinance 
is evidently fatal. The sinner must be immersed 
in order to the remission of his sins. (Was this 
the peculiarity of his doctrine, that Campbell 
referred to when he spoke of its "novelty?") The 
Roman Catholics, although their doctrine damns 
unbaptized persons, does not damn them because of 
their lack of knowledge, or of the true purpose, if 
only they are baptized. 

But observe how exclusive the follower of Camp- 
bell is. If his doctrine is true, western Europe, 
for hundreds of years, with its men, women and 
children, was lost. This is cruel; to turn so many 
millions into hell simply because they did not know 
the true mode of baptism, or its true purpose. 

An aged Presbyterian missionary, who has 
preached the gospel for many years in India, and 
whose self-denial for his fellow men has led him into 
the hovels of the sick, to take care of the miserable 
sufferers of the bubonic plague, finally takes the 



248 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

dread disease himself and dies in a foreign land, and 
is lost; .... because he was not immersed. 
An old Baptist missionary, who has preached 
the gospel to the heathen for a half century, whose 
love for the Bible, and his love for Jesus, have led 
him to translate the Word of God into the heathen 
language, that men might be saved through Jesus 
Christ, falls sick in the village where he had 
preached salvation. The natives, whom he had 
turned from idolatry, and whose hearts he had won, 
now minister to him in his feebleness and paralysis. 
He had immersed many of them, he had trained them 
to read the Bible in their own tongue, and they love 
him next to their Savior. But his constitution had 
been undermined by the hardships he had suffered 
in earlier years, and death comes to him lying help- 
less among his weeping converts ; . . . . and he 
is lost .... because, although he had been 
immersed, he had not been immersed in order to the 
remission of his sins ; but rather to obey his Master. 
And all his converts are to be lost with him, though 
they had given up their false gods and trusted in 
Jesus for salvation, and had obeyed every command 
of God of which they knew. God has only one plan 
of salvation, you know, and that, according to Camp- 
bell, is immersion in water, in order to remission. 

What millions on millions the doctrine damns, 
not because of their characters, but because they 
made a mistake about baptism, the mode of baptism, 
or the purpose of baptism ! 

Wm. Penn made a mistake about baptism. He 
was a very intelligent man, who loved Jesus and 
thought he was serving him; at least, in a jail in 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELL ISM 249 

England he endured imprisonment for his Christian 
faith. But notwithstanding his deep love of relig- 
ion, and his carrying his principles into practice in 
his treatment of the Indians in Pennsylvania, 
according to Campbellism he must be lost: for he 
believed that water-baptism was not commanded to 
the followers of Christ at all after the apostolic age ; 
but that Jesus would baptize his followers, as John 
the Baptist predicted, "in the Holy Ghost and in 
fire." 

And there was John Milton, the author of 
Paradise Lost, whose physical blind eyes could not 
see the letters of the Bible which his daughters read 
to him, but whose spiritual sight has helped 
millions of Christians to look on heavenly visions. 
How strange he will feel to hear the Savior he loved 
and worshiped tell him that he lost Paradise because 
he was not immersed ! 

And Isaac Watts, whose hymns of praise to the 
Lord are sung even by the followers of Campbell! 
With what happiness of heart and faith in Christ he 
must have written those sweet words, 

"Joy to the world! the Lord is come; 

Let earth receive her King; 
Let every heart prepare him room, 

And heaven and nature sing." 

You see, he thought Jesus was King when he came 
to the earth. And when Watts comes up before 
Jesus in the day of judgment, how astonished he will 
be to hear him say, "Depart from me ye cursed, into 
everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his 
angels," for thou wast not immersed. And as 
Watts mournfully departs for the regions of the lost, 



250 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

I imagine he will feel much like withdrawing his 
words, 

"Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove, 
With all thy quick'ning powers; 

Kindle a flame of sacred love 
In these cold hearts of ours. 

Look how we grovel here below, 

Fond of these earthly toys; 
Our souls can neither fly nor go, 

To reach eternal joys! 

In vain we tune our formal songs, 

In vain we strive to rise; 
Hosannas languish on our tongues, 

And our devotion dies. 

Father, and shall we ever live 

At this poor dying rate? 
Our love so faint, so cold to thee, 

And thine to us so great? 

Come, Holy Spirit, heavenly Dove, 

With all thy quick'ning powers; 
Come, shed abroad a Savior's love, 

And that shall kindle ours." 

How Isaac Watts will change his mind about a 
Savior's love, as he goes off to the infernal regions, 
handcuffed to a burglar or swindler ! 

And Sir Isaac Newton! What department of 
Gehenna will the Lord send him to, because he did 
not know that he ought to be immersed in order to 
the remission of his sins. Newton discovered many 
of the methods of the operation of God's laws; but 
he never discovered Campbellism, though he is con- 
sidered the greatest philosopher of modern times, 
and is honored also for his writings about portions 
of the New Testament. And he loved Jesus so 
devotedly, that when he was engaged in the most 
absorbing demonstration, or problem of philosophical 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELLISM 251 

investigation, if his hour of prayer arrived, he would 
push away from him his mathematical tables, his 
complicated equations, and reverently take his Bible, 
read his appointed portion, and then humbly kneel 
in prayer. But he must be lost, because he was 
not immersed! How sad! 

And did you ever hear of Charles Wesley? He 
was another of those unimmersed Christians who 
thought he was serving God. And in his ignorance 
of Christianity he brought many sinners to Jesus 
without immersing them. He once cried out to 
Jesus in the great world struggle, saying, "Jesus, 
lover of my soul, let me to thy bosom fly." But this 
was in 1740, before Campbell had announced that "no 
prayers, songs of praise, no acts of devotion in the 
new economy, are enjoined on the unbaptized" 

(Christian Baptist, p. 439) But poor 

Wesley did not know that; and he cried, 

"Plenteous grace with thee is found, 

Grace to cover all my sin : 
Let the healing streams abound; 

Make and keep me pure within. 
Thou of life the fountain art, 

Freely let me take of thee; 
Spring thou up within my heart, 

Rise to all eternity." 

I wonder what Wesley will think in the judg- 
ment day when he finds some angels, under the 
instruction or influence of Alexander Campbell, 
placing him on the left hand among the wicked who 
had not given their lives to Jesus, just because he 
had not been immersed. I think he will still, not- 
withstanding Campbell's doctrine and influence, 



252 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

even though for a moment he may be scared, cry out 
to Jesus, 

"Other refuge have I none; 

Hangs my helpless soul on thee: 
Leave, oh, leave me not alone ! 

Still support and comfort me: 
All my trust on thee is stayed, 

All my help from thee I bring; 
Cover my defenseless head" — from these Campbellites — 

"With the shadow of thy wing!" 

"Wilt thou not regard my call? 

Wilt thou not accept my prayer? 
Lo! I sink, I faint, I fall — 

Lo! on thee I cast my care: 
Reach me out thy gracious hand," etc., 



And then I think that Jesus, looking reproach- 
fully at him for his momentary fear, will stretch 
forth his hand, as he did to Peter, and save him, 
saying, "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou 
doubt?" 

Did you ever notice w r ith what kind of society 
Campbell labors to fill the halls of hell? 

There w r as Jesus himself! 

Will Campbell go to him some time after the 
judgment day and advise him to vacate the throne 
(as he discrowns him here) and ask him to depart 
from heaven because, although immersed, it was 
before the day of Pentecost, and therefore his 
immersion did not count as Christian baptism? 

Perhaps Campbell is too modest to do that in 
the presence of the angels; remembering that in his 
own case if he had died before the Baptists expelled 
him, or he had discovered his "novelty" (that immer- 
sion is to obtain remission), he might have failed 
to get into heaven himself Yes; Camp- 
bell will be too modest to take the crown 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELLISM 253 

off Jesus' head in heaven, though he discrowns 
him on earth Besides heaven is differ- 
ent from earth. .... But I imagine, almost, 
that I see Campbell looking with frowning face 
toward multitudes and multitudes of little children, 
who died before they were immersed, of whom Jesus 
had said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, 
and forbid them not : for of snich is the kingdom of 
heaven." And as Campbell sees the thousands and 
thousands of little children who had got into heaven 
without immersion, I imagine him going to Jesus 
with modest advice: — 

Lord, thou hast but one plan of salvation; and thou 
didst say to Nicodemus that any one must be born of water 
to enter the kingdom of God. Therefore, for thy con- 
sistency, I advise thee to have all the little children yet 
immersed; have them born of water. The Christian 
system requires consistency. If thou dost not have them 
immersed, I myself will expound to them the true plan of 
salvation, and get them to go down to the water of the 
River of Life, and be immersed properly, as Peter com- 
manded on the day of Pentecost, when he set up thy 
kingdom. 

But Jesus might reply, 

I did not say to Nicodemus that any one must be 
baptized to enter the kingdom of God. I said "born of 
water and Spirit;" that is, born of flesh and Spirit. I 
explained to Nicodemus my Hebrew figure immediately. 
These children have been properly received into heaven, 
and the angels will take care of them. 

But Campbell may argue, 

But "born of water" must mean baptism. That is 
the way I always preached it on earth; and I insisted that 
thou didst have but one plan of salvation. That was ever 
my "plea." Thy plan of salvation was "gospel in water." 
And the children must be "born of water." 

But at this point ten thousand times ten 
thousand angels round about the throne most in- 



254 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

consistently interrupt Campbell's logic and instruc- 
tion to the Lord, by loud praises to Jesus, saying, — 

"Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the 
seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and didst purchase unto 
God with thy blood of every tribe, and tongue, and people, 
and nation" (Rev. 5:9). 

In vain Campbell tries to check the chorus of 
praise to Jesus, and at last turns away from those 
ignorant angels, muttering, "Why do they not say 
something about baptism?" 

In the whole book of Kevelation baptism is not 
mentioned once. But why not, if all who have 
entered heaven since the day of Pentecost have been 
baptized; if baptism and remission of sins were 
"inseparably connected?" Sins are mentioned in 
the book, salvation, redemption and cleansing, and 
other things naturally bringing to the Campbellite 
mind the ordinance of baptism as securing cleansing. 
Why is not baptism once mentioned? Why is not 
Peter mentioned as having crowned Jesus? Why is 
not Pentecost mentioned as the date? The King is 

often spoken of The answer is that the 

citizens of heaven are not Campbellites enthusi- 
astically, if the writer of the book told the truth 
in his pictures. 

Oh! the cruelty of Campbell's doctrine! See 
the multitudes wiioin he turns into hell, if his 
doctrine is true. What will heaven be with so 
many millions of good people in hell? 

Say I not truthfully that Campbellism is 
rebellion? 

What doctrine could more effectually overturn 
God's merciful purposes of salvation through Jesus 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELLISM 255 

Christ? It is far more cruel than the most odious 
shade of Calvinism: for according to that doctrine 
God makes those righteous whom he wishes to save. 
But Campbellism damns the good. 

And the arrogance of the doctrine is seen in the 
cool indifference with which its advocates disregard 
its logical result in damning so many good people, 
by their evasion of that result, when they sometimes 
say that they do not claim that "baptism is 
essential to salvation;" notwithstanding that is the 
whole burden of their preaching, the chief point of 
it, following the theory of Alexander Campbell him- 
self, who worded his rebellious doctrine in the 
following language: — 

"When the gospel was announced on Pentecost, and 
when Peter opened the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, 
he commanded them to be immersed for the remission of 
sins. This is quite sufficient, if we had not another word 
on the subject. I say it is quite sufficient to show that 
the forgiveness of sins and Christian immersion were, in 
their first proclamations by the holy apostles inseparably 
connected together. Peter, to whom was (sic) committed 
the keys, opened the kingdom of heaven in this manner, 
and made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, 
equally necessary to forgiveness" (Christian Baptist, p. 
416). 

Thus the Campbellite, notwithstanding his 
repudiation of the charge that he shuts the kingdom 
of heaven against the unimmersed, does so shut the 
kingdom as far as he is able to do so. He shuts 
the "kingdom of heaven" against everybody until 
the day of Pentecost, and against all but the 
immersed from the day of Pentecost onward forever ; 
making us think of the judgment day, and the words 
of Jesus about our conduct toward his followers: — 



256 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Mat. 25 : 40. "And the King shall answer and say unto 
them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto 
one of these my brethren, (even) these least, ye did it 
unto me." 

In such a passage, the words, "these least/' may 
not refer to physical stature, but to "faith as a grain 
of mustard seed," or moral excellence, or spiritual 
development, or theological correctness. And, no 
matter what may make a brother little, Jesus 
identifies himself with the "least" of his brethren; 
and every one can see that it is dangerous to keep 
the brethren out of the kingdom: for Jesus will 
consider that we have that spirit toward him. To 
argue one of the brethren out of the kingdom, even 
an unimmersed one, even a little one, is to argue 
Jesus out; thus meriting the denunciation of Jesus 
as follows : — 

Mat. 23 : 13. "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! because ye shut the kingdom of heaven against 
men: for ye enter not in yourselves, neither suffer ye 
them that are entering in to enter." 

And the Campbellite, with the logic of a petti- 
fogger, prates of the "keys" of the kingdom ; he says 
the keys were committed to Peter; but he allows 
Peter only to unlock the door wide enough for 
immersion; thus throwing away the "key of knowl- 
edge" that Peter used when he declared that God 
"cleansed the hearts" of the Gentiles "by faith" 
(Acts 15: 9) ; the Campbellite, like a lawyer, thrown 
away that "key of knowledge" of the love of God, 
and merits the denunciation of Jesus as follows: — 

Luke 11 : 52. "Woe unto you lawyers ! for ye took 
away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, 
and them that were entering in ye hindered." 



CRUELTY OF CAMPBELLISM 257 

Campbell and his followers hinder converts 
from entering the kingdom, making "repentance and 
immersion equally necessary to forgiveness." 

But when we reproach them with shutting the 
kingdom behind an immersion-ocean, they whine of 
speaking only where the Bible speaks, and being 
silent where the Bible is silent. 

But, to repudiate the result of their doctrine, 
when driven to see it, indicates its morally debauch- 
ing influence. 

And then the horror of it is the greater, because 
there is not a text in the whole Bible that teaches 
Campbellism. And even to make a superficial show 
of proof the Campbellite must exclude the four 
Gospels. Campbellism directly contradicts many 
passages of the Bible, and subverts its whole spirit. 
It howls where the Bible is silent, and noisily 
contradicts where the Bible speaks. 

It is a practical infidelity, adapted to over- 
throwing loving and spiritual Christianity. 

The underlying cause of this conduct of Gamp- 
bellites is their theology, which lays hold on the 
Scripture to support and build up that common bent 
of sinful man, to glorify himself and his deeds, and 
to escape the humiliation of spiritual change. The 
sinner likes to earn his salvation, if he condescends 
to accept it of God. It accords with his vanity, 
to perform a mechanical act or a physical ceremony. 
It serves as a kind of receipt to his vain heart, which 
is closely allied to the flesh, which goes through the 
form. 



CONCLUSION 

What is the explanation? 

One crisis: — 

The enemy of man, in the Garden of Eden, 
deceived Eve with an artful theory about the for- 
bidden fruit, making it seem to her a good thing 
to eat; and persuaded her that by eating she would 
understand things; "that she and her husband 
would be like gods," comprehending the question 
of "good and evil," a mysterious puzzle to them 

hitherto, if they had ever considered it 

Observe, how long ago a tricky quibbler got men 
interested in a theory that made it important for 
them to learn how to secure "remission of sins." The 
history seems to convey the idea that they expected 
by a mere physical action, the stretching forth the 
hand to another tree and eating, to escape the result 

of their sin How long Adam and Eve 

had lived in the Paradise without sin the Bible does 
not reveal. It might have been during the whole 
stretch of a geologic period. Who knows? Some- 
times in those long ages, if they were long, before 
they began to take account of time, it is possible 
that they often wondered how it would seem to take 
of the forbidden tree. At last that bold theologian 
mentioned in the Bible came along and offered a 
doctrine that had the peculiarity of "novelty," when 
it waa artfully presented by the deceiver; but it led 



CONCLUSION 259 

to the knowledge of sin, and death : for it set aside 
obedience to the loving instruction of God. 



Another crisis: — 

When Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came into 
the world to save it from sin, and confessed to 
Caiaphas that he was the Son of God, that learned 
theologian, an expert in the philosophy of sin, like 
the one who had instructed Eve, decided positively 
that the "seed of the woman" was a sinner, and 
worthy of condemnation. But his theory, though 
Jesus was hanged on a "tree," led to the death of 
thousands and millions of Jews. Thus again 
obedience to the loving instruction of heaven was 
set aside, with the result, death. 

And we notice the irony of the deception 
practiced on the Jews by the deceiver, in inducing 
them to kill Jesus, their Christ, who was the true 
Son of the Father. On that day in Jerusalem there 
was a certain traitor, murderer and robber, in 
prison, whom the Jews asked Pilate to set free. His 
name was Barabbas. That word means, son of the 
father. The early church writer, Origen, says that 
Barabbas was also called Jesus. And one version 
has it that when Pilate appealed to the Jews, he 
put the question this way: — "Whom will ye that 
I shall deliver unto you, Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus 
that is called Christ?" 

Observe Satan's irony: making the Jews ask 
Pilate to set free the son of the father, who was a 
murderer, and to crucify the Son of the Father, who 



260 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

was the Prince of Life. They asked Pilate to set 
free the son of the father, who was a robber, and 
to crucify the Son of the Father, who, "though he 
was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we 
through his poverty might become rich." 

But that has all along been Satan's way of 
resisting the kingdom of God and its truth. There 
must always be some sham, if possible, if it be only 
in words or names; there must be some counterfeit 
of the truth. And Satan has delighted to do this 
counterfeiting by means of names. 

But notwithstanding the shams and counter- 
feits all the way along, of course God has never 
been deceived, though in each great struggle many 
men for a time have been, and have been destroyed 
by him who was the "father of lies" and a murderer 
from the beginning. 

And God has meant war against deception. 

Satan by beguiling Eve robbed the human 
family of Eden and the tree of life. Possibly he 
supposed that he captured the woman, to be his 
servant forever. 

But "God said unto the serpent, I will put 
enmity between thee and the woman, and between 
thy seed and her seed." 

And that enmity has existed from that day to 
this; and God's prophecy has all along been fulfilled 
about it. And the war continued ; deception being 
the great weapon of the serpent. The question ruled 
on by Caiaphas was used to excite man's curiosity, 
because intertwined with that of "good and evil." 
Satan used it to nullify the command and Word of 
God; and again men were led by tricky quibbling 



CONCLUSION 261 

to set aside the loving instruction of heaven, and 
substitute earthly dogmas, semi-pagan usages, 
human commandments between God and the Bible. 
. . . . While doing this, Satan saw that the 
cross had become a popular sign. It was a "taking" 
symbol, was destined to capture mankind, and to 
become the ornament of the world. Therefore he 
took it, and made it the emblem of his counterfeit 
church, and later instructed his followers to put on 

it for worship a dead form And those 

whose "eyes were opened," as they claimed, to 
"discern good and evil," called themselves "cath- 
olics," announcing the unity of the church 

And men were taught that remission of sin depended 
on accepting the interpretation of the Word of God 
published by those who considered that their "eyes 
were opened," on confession to a priest, and secur- 
ing absolution by performing the penance he 
commanded. And then religious practice became 
a matter of works: counting beads, crossing with 

holy water, bowing to images, doing penance 

But the pagan substitute for the religion of Christ 
led to disaster; and again death was the effect: 
between sixty million and eighty million through 
the centuries, dying because of earth-made religion. 

God's prophecy was fulfilled ; there was 

war between the seed of woman and "the deceiver of 
the whole world" (Rev. 12 : 9). 



Another crisis: — 

About the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
in our own land men began to throw off creeds and 



2t)2 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

human names. They again made conversion and 
conduct the test of fellowship as in the time of 
Christ and the apostles. Various denominations 
and movements became more and more imbued with 
this tendency. They more and more received one 
another "as Christ also had received them, to the 
glory of God." Various denominations set creeds 
in the background, and some announced the Bible as 
the only creed, and the union of Christians again 
began to be in sight: for with Christian conduct, 
the Bible open, and character-fellowship, what was 
to hinder Christians from coming gradually, but 
steadily, together unto the unity prayed for by 
Jesus. 

Then soon again was devised an obstructive 
counterfeit by a quibbler concerning truth and sin. 
Campbell professed to discover a "novel" doctrine 
of salvation; but it was the old humbug of an out- 
ward act, based on accepting a certain interpreta- 
tion of the Bible; a mental theory and some physical 

act as fixing a man's relation to God 

The tempter saw that the Bible creed was again 
becoming popular, was a "taking" battle-cry, and 
he adopted it; but he shrewdly took the virtue out 
of it, by imposing his "novel" doctrine of immersion- 
regeneration as the true interpretation of the Bible. 
That undermined the practice of character-fellow- 
ship, and an intellectual theory again was launched 

to separate the followers of Christ The 

devil was again teaching how men's eyes were to be 
opened, how to perform an act, how physically to 
pluck some fruit guaranteeing eternal life. But 
again it was salvation by dead works. . . . The 



CONCLUSION 263 

union of Christians had begun to be in sight; but 
the tempter made it a battle-cry for a sectism that 
cuts off the majority of the Christian world from 

church fellowship The name Christian 

had again begun to breathe abroad the sweetest 
fragrance of Antioch and Jerusalem ; but the 
deceiver adopted it, along with other titles, and 
gathered by its help to his war against truth many 
a lover of Christ, who did not understand that he 
was following the dragon ensign, whose scales were 
concealed by the wrappings of pretension, ambition, 
fallacy and worldly success. Again it was 
Barabbas against the Son of the Father. 

Need I go on and describe the counterfeiting of 
the truth? the perverting of Bible names to the 
propagation of falsehood? the changing of Christian 
union into division? the distorting of the beautiful 
ordinance of baptism into the trade-mark of a sect? 
and the sham of professing to take the Bible as the 
only creed, in effort really to overthrow the Bible 
as the rule of faith and practice? 

It is the same age-long war between the serpent 
and the woman, the bride, the Lamb's wife. "And 
the serpent cast out of his mouth water ;»s a river, 
that he might cause her to be carried away by the 
stream" (Kev. 12: 15). He assumed her name, her 
creed, her flag, and with their prestige continues the 
war to this day : for there was a remnant left. "And 
the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went 
away to make war with the rest of her seed, that 
keep the commandments of God, and hold the testi- 
mony of Jesus" (Rev. 12: 17). 



264 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

But in "holding the testimony of Jesus," though 
f or a time, because of unfaithful pastors and 
incapable "officials," real Bible people may seem to 
be carried away by the flood of numbers cast out 
of his mouth by the deceiver, free and spiritual 
Christians of all denominations are really on the 
side of the real King, who, although denied, 
betrayed, or crucified, does reign and "must reign 
till he hath put all enemies under his feet" (1 Cor. 
15:25). 

The deceiver will be defeated. And his poison- 
ous resources, death to spirituality, sophistry, 
arrogance, falsehood, impudence, rebellion, sham 
and counterfeit, will not prevail. He will be 
overwhelmed by Christ. "And when all things 
have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son 
also himself be subjected to him that did subject all 
things unto him, that God may be all in all" (1 
Cor. 15:28). 

Genuine Campbellism is rebellion against the 
King of glory. Its counterfeit temple is an 
immense whited sepulchre, covering the dead 
dogmas of the old deceiver. And hundreds and 
thousands of deceived disciples of the Master are 
being chilled out of their spirituality by wandering 
in the cold gloom of its damp tunnels, or standing 
as spectators in the dim lantern light of Campbell- 
ism among the doctrinal bones, which the deceiver 
in his age-long war tries to use in building his 
temple. But those bones are only the "doctrines 
and commandments of men," though named anew 
and whitewashed with Campbellite sophistry. They 
are only broken bones and cannot be made to sup- 



CONCLUSION 265 

port the whited sepulchre; much less the church, 
the real body of Christ. 

Many of Campbell's followers are now- striving 
to get out of the charnel-house, into the full sunshine 
of God ; to get out of the dull air of decaying error, 
into the pure breathings of God's Spirit ; to get rid 
of a commerce in dead works, and to enjoy the 
family rights with all the Father's children. 

Many of Campbell's followers are coming to 
see that they must turn from Campbell to Jesus, 
whom they love; or they will be responsible for 
many of the evils of the last great religious crisis 
of the world. And this causes them now to hear 
a voice from heaven, saying, as gently as the 
reproach of conscience, or as loudly as the sound 
of many waters, 

"I Jesus have sent mine angels to testify unto you these 
things for the churches. I am the root and offspring of 
David, the bright, the morning star. And the Spirit and 
the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, 
Gome. And he that is athirst, let him come : he that will, 
let him take the water of life freely" (Rev. 22:16-17). 



INDEX 



Page 

Apostles, The, The Spirit promised to 210 

Baptism, Campbell argues for immersion in water "in order 

to" remission of sins 39 

Woman in Jerusalem pardoned through faith 40 

Man sick of palsy pardoned through faith 44 

Penitent on cross saved without baptism 48 

Romanism teaches remission of sins in baptism 49 

Mormons teach baptismal regeneration 50 

Campbell's main doctrine 51 

Campbell teaching immersion "in order to" remission .... 59ff. 

Baptism a proclamation of faith in Jesus 68 

John's baptism 73 

Paul converted before his baptism 80 

Baptism not the putting away sin 84 

Baptism a figure of the resurrection 88 

"Born of water" not referring to baptism 92 

Certain men of Ephesus baptized 116 

Jesus baptized only by John 119 

Good conscience asks for baptism 126 

Campbell arbitrarily selects baptism as distinctive doctrine. . 136 

Baptism offered to God's own people 141 

Paul not commissioned to baptize 163 

No command for baptism in New Testament after Acts .... 167 

Christ not baptized "to show mode" 179 

Baptists 

Some Baptists extremely devoted to immersion 13 

German Baptists waiting months for rite 165 

Barabbas 

Name signifies "Son of the father" ; 259 

Satan using "Barabbas" in irony 259 

Call to ministry 

Denied by Campbell 212ff. 

Taught in Scripture 213ff. 

Campbell, Alexander 

Founder of the Disciples of Christ 9 

Uses severe terms in -controversy 11, 12 

Claims that the Kingdom was not set up till Day of Pentecost 

17ff., 174, 177 

Joins Jews in denying Kingship to Jesus 23 



268 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Discrowns Christ 34 

Desires to discard authority of the Four Gospels 39ff. 

Immersion "in order to" the remission of sins his cardinal 

doctrine 39, 51ff. 

Campbell inconsistent in debate 57, 69 

Campbell desired people to believe that Peter commanded the 
Jews to be immersed "in order to" the remission of sins . .60ff. 

Falsified the Greek in Acts 2 : 38 62 

Perverts language of Peter 67 

Puts baptism in place of regeneration 97 

Reverses order of Christ in reference to birth of water and 

spirit 99 

leaches remission by works 3 23 

Teaches "rights and immunities" in immersion 134 

Argues that Apostles were not born again till Day of Pente- 
cost 156, 157 

Teaches that sinners should not pray 18511. 

Teaches that the New Testament was a will not in force till 

death of Jesus 188ff. 

Teaches that Christ's words have no authority as to remis- 
sion of sins 198 

Directs communion every Sunday 200ff. 

Teaches that converting power is in the Word 206 

Opposes salaries for the ministry , . . 211 

Argues against a Divine call to the ministry 212, 213 

Makes belief of sinner the same as that of Christian 216ff. 

Error of, in order of Christian experience 222ff. 

Confuses repentance with reformation 23 Iff. 

Campbellism 

Not generally accepted by any Christian body 8 

Campbellism an insidious counterfeit of Christianity 15 

Campbellism is rebellion 16 

Dogma that Kingdom was not set until the Day of Pentecost 

a necessity of Campbellism 16ff., 174, 177 

Peter at Caesarea refutes Campbellism 30 

Campbellism discrowns Christ 34 

Why Campbellism discrowns Christ 39ff. 

Campbellism disowns the authority of the Four Gospels .... 39ff . 
Immersion for the remission of sins a cardinal doctrine of 

Campbellism 39 

Campbellism similar to Romanism 49ff. 

Campbellism resembles Mormonism 50 

Campbell's main doctrine 51 

Campbellism takes away the beauty of Christ's character ... 01 

Campbellism shrinks from its own dogmas 93 

Campbellism was never taught by Jesus 98 

Campbellism contradicts the "exact words of inspiration" . . 106 
Campbellism refuted by I. Cor. 12 : 13 120 



INDEX 269 

Campbellism refuted by Christ's teaching 120 

Campbellism teaches remission by works 123 

Refuted by Scripture 161ff. 

Campbellism teaches that the sinner should not pray 185ff. 

Campbellism teaches that the New Testament was not in 

force till the death of Jesus 188ff. 

Campbellism assumes that Christ's words were of no author- 
ity as to remission of sins 198 

Campbellism directs the communion every Sunday 200ff. 

Declares that the Scriptures are the medium of the Holy 

Spirit 203ff. 

The minor errors of Campbellism 215 

Subsidiary errors of Campbellism 216ff. 

Campbellism creates a secrtarian spirit 239ff . 

Campbellism corrected by the Bible and the Holy Spirit .... 241 

Minor inconsistencies of Campbellism 246 

Campbellism insisting on "purpose" in baptism 247 

Christ 

Christ claims authority as King 21 

He is King in his own Kingdom 22ff. 

Christ filled with the Holy Spirit 29 

Why Campbellism discrowns Christ 39ff. 

Christ never teaches the necessity of immersion in water for 

the remission of sins 39ff. 

Christ's claims approved by the Father 94 

Christ preached the gospel 96 

Christ never rejected a penitent for lack of baptism 98 

Christ was baptized to fulfil all righteousness 179 

Christ forgave sins, thus exercising kingship 181 

No Scripture hints that he ever surrendered his authority in 
his Kingdom 200 

Christian Baptist 

Admits that there can be remission of sins for infants with- 
out baptism 246 

Christian Standard 

Deprecates harsh language 242 

Christian Standard on "the policy of controversy" 243, 244 

Church, The 

Dogma that the church was not established till the Day of 

Pentecost a necessity of Campbellism 16, 17ff., 174 

Tne Pentecostal church was drawn from "devout" Jews . . 67 

God adds to his church 76 

The church is baptized by the Spirit 120 

Christ "washing" the church, the Bride 126 

Dogma that the church was not established till the Day of 
Pentecost 180 

Communion, The 

A fulfilment of the passover feast 137 



270 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Campbellism urges communion every Sunday 200ff. 

Refutation of the dogma of weekly communion 201ff. 

Creeds, 

Men at the beginning of the Nineteenth Century discarding 
creeds 261 

Gospel, 

Campbell's doctrine that the gospel was not preached till the 

Day of Pentecost 17ff., 180 

The gospel is full and free 172 

The gospel was preached before the Day of Pentecost. .182, 183 

Holy Spirit, The 

Bestowed at Caesarea 31 

A witness to Jesus 32 

Not known by certain men at Ephesus 117 

John preached about the Holy Spirit 117 

The church is baptized by the Spirit 120 

Spirit baptism secures remission of sins 122 

Spirit baptism in the house of Cornelius 169 

Campbellism teaches that the Spirit works solely through 

the Scripture 203AC . 

The Spirit promised to the apostles 210 

The Spirit corrects sectarian tendencies 241 

Immersion, 

Campbellism wishes to make immersion in water "in order 

to" remission of sins 39 

Romanism teaches remission in baptism 49 

Mormonism teaches baptismal regeneration 50 

Campbell's main doctrine is immersion "in order to" remission 51ff. 

Discussion of immersion "in order to" remission 59ff. 

Baptism is proclamation of faith in Jesus 68 

Campbell's "rights and immunities guaranteed" in immersion 134 
If the dogma is correct, error of purpose in baptism would be 

fatal 247 

Good Christians who have never been immersed 248ff. 

Jesus. See Christ. 

Justification, 

Justification by works a mistake of men 167 

Justification is by faith and not by works 169ff. 

Heavenly wisdom in Justification by faith 170 

Justification by baptism a dangerous theory 171 

Kingdom, The 

Campbell's claim that it was not set up till the Day of 

Pentecost 16 

His claim that It wai opened by Peter 17, 174 

Scripture shows that the Kingdom was set up before the Bay 

of Pentecost 18ff. 

Christ pardons the woman 40 

The church elected an apostle In place of Jadas befora tba 



INDHX 271 

Day of Pentecost — an exercise of churchly power 180 

Milton, John, was not immersed 249 

Mormonism, 

Campbellism Is similar to Mormonism 50 

Mormonism teaches that the unbaptized are to be damned . . 74 

Newton, Sir Isaac, a devout Christian 251 

Nicodemus, 

Nlcodemus understands two births only 103 

Paul, 

He was saved before he was baptized 78, 79 

In Pisidia he makes remission depend exclusively on faith . . 147 

Paul was commissioned by Jesus Christ 162 

Teaches that the Gentiles have remission by faith 163 

Paul discusses works and faith 168 

Peter, 

He opens the Kingdom to the Gentiles in Caesarea 30 

He conditions remission on belief 144 

His omission of mention of baptism in his second and third 

addresses 166 

He is but one of many to hold the "keys" 174, 177 

Paul resisting Peter 176 

Peter admits his former error 183 

Perm, William, imprisoned in England 249 

Prodigal Son, The 153ff. 

Remission of sins, 

Immersion "in order to," a cardinal dogma of Campbellism. . 39 

Baptismal regeneration taught by Rome 49ff. 

Campbell's main doctrine 51ff. 

Campbell wished people to believe that Peter commanded the 
Jews to be immersed "in order to" remission 60ff. 

Remission not mentioned in Matt. 28 : 19 112 

Campbell's dogma makes the King powerless to save without 

the help of a preacher 135 

The Scripture teaches remission by faith 221 

Campbell admits remission for infants without baptism .... 246 
His claim that "purpose" in baptism is essential 247 

Resurrection, The, Tatian's account of 26 

Revelation, The Book of, does not mention immersion 254 

Romanism, 

Teaches baptismal regeneration 49 

Romanism substitutes penance for repentance 233 

Romanism less sectarian than Campbellism 239 

Salvation by grace 171 

Scriptures, the Holy 

After the book of Acts no command in for baptism 167 

Scriptures a covenant, not a will 191ff. 

Never hint that Christ surrendered his authority 200 

The call to the ministry is taaght In Scripture 212 



272 CAMPBELLISM IS REBELLION 

Campbellism opposes the authority of Scripture 239 

No text in the Bible teaches Campbellism 257 

Tatian, gives account of Christ's resurrection 26 

Watts, Isaac, the sweet Christian poet 249 

Wesley, Charles, believed that he was serving God . . . , 251 



AUG 6 t915 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2006 

PreservationTechnoiogiei 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIO 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



7 3L3 



